/liberty/ - Liberty

>>67624

By default yes and no. It can be if you move into a residential area and smog it up, but if people come to live around you, then you hold the "rights" (quotes are important here) to the surrounding air until it interferes with other facilities, at which point you're liable for your pollution.

>>67624

>would they be right to form eco-crusades and invade the USA, China, etc. to stop them from poisoning the planet?

No. And they can't "poison" the entire planet even if they tried to.

>>67627

Science disagrees.

While pollution can be considered a form of aggression, there are types of pollution that people accept, since it makes their lives better. The smog from a car, while harmful to the environment, is better than a city without cars, and instead horse-drawn carriages. This is why driving a car, doesn't break the NAP, because people accept this form of micro-aggression as it benefits them overall. But as I said, there are also unnecessary and harmful types of pollution, such as dumping radioactive material into the ocean, or throwing plastic bottles in a forest, both of these could be easily solved with privatising the ocean and the forests.

>>67628

The science is not settled, and the solutions are nazi-tier.

>>67633

>the final solutions are nazi-tier.

FTFY

>>67633

>The science is not settled

It mostly is.

>the solutions are nazi-tier.

But human extinction in exchange for a few more years of record profits is somewhat better.

>>67628

That's beside the point. How do you quantify the damages caused by one factory, one region, or one nation? Even if you had an exact count of every greenhouse gas emitted down to the molecule, how do you calculate the effect the net increase in global temperature had on anyone's person or property in particular?

This is much easier on the local level, which is why the solutions need to come from there. A factory moves in near to you and starts spewing ash and smelly gases all over your property. From this, you can approximate some damages: Property value decline, doctor visits and medication for respiratory damage, etc. You can come up with a number that is more or less accurate and then you tack on some extra punitive damages. Get everyone in your neighborhood involved and you have a class action lawsuit.

>>67636

>>67646

Also human extinction from nuclear winter and totalitarian governments are still a higher priority and more likely event than death by solar radiation or a Venus effect. Death by Yellowstone erupting is more likely with how fast technology is advancing to not waste profits.

People will cause pollution and raise global temperatures until billions die and the temperature decreases. Like the free market, the climate is self correcting.

>>67636

>the science is settled

The problem with this is, Leftists themselves argue that science is not necessarily detached, asocial, value-neutral enterprise. (Yet they seem to think the problem is phallogocentrism in STEM.) Even when there is no obvious ideological motive, whole research programs can become "degenerative" for several decades, as in the hilariously dysfunctional world of theoretical physics and in particular string theory. And these people are not stupid. I think science's issues are a manifestation of problems with our whole society since at least the 1950's.

Leftists will all agree that orthodox economics has been politicized for a long time, since the Marxians and Keynesians got shuffled along, and serves to perpetuate ruling class ideology. They even have their own fake Nobel prize! Similarly to climatology, it utilizes ensembles of supremely complex "black box" computer models which make predictions against historical data sets then are tinkered with in an ad hoc fashion. The economists got together with the climatologists and suggested a speculative market for carbon, while Leftists in general tend to favor a global regulatory apparatus. Both of these solutions effectively hand more control to global financial capitalism. Soros has campaigned for a global regulatory apparatus in finance, does he act in his class interest or not? Leftist theory essentially agrees with the idea of regulatory capture, it's called the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. Yet for some odd reason they think the UN or NASA is immune, whenever it suits them of course.

I'm not sure if some or any of the predictions of anthropogenic climate change are real. I think pollution is currently fucking up the planet in general however, and climatology as an overarching existential threat distracts from this. What I do know is, "true believers" claim to feel like the world could very likely face a massive cataclysm and very soon unless dramatic changes are made, yet none of them act like it, choosing instead to primarily snarkily bitch online, certainly not going full ELF. Suspiciously cowardly and ineffectual considering they are claiming we are being dragged into literal extinction.

The system as it currently has gotten to almost precludes us from knowing. Why am I to believe this is not just the Marxist "contradictions leading into collapse so we need global managerial state" argument 2.0 (3.0 if you include Kliman et al)? Are you suggesting the millions of Marxist intellectuals, scientists and so on, who all believed this, were stupid? Another amusing example is social psychology, it got totally overrun with the left, then it turned out the research was so filled with holes barely any of it could even be replicated.

>>67669

>I'm not sure if some or any of the predictions of anthropogenic climate change are real. I think pollution is currently fucking up the planet in general however, and climatology as an overarching existential threat distracts from this.

This anon gets it.

>>67646

>>67647

Every claim you make about carbon is based on misinterpreted or out right false sources. The technology behind solar and wind is also almost always less polluting than fossil fuel sources by design, however due to geographical and meteorological limitations they can't perform at peak unless conditions allow. Comparing misused solar and wind with optimal fossil fuel use is as bad as assuming a coal plant let's its coal get wet before burning it.

>Pollution is wasted profit

On an economical scale, not on an individual scale, in which free market forces primarily pressure towards pursuit of individual gain, which can be very polluting.

The rest of your claims are okay.

>>67631

Privatisation won't solve pollution if pollution is more profitable than preservation. Which is often the case.

>>67682

This kills the environmentalist.

>>67676

I've thrown bits of garbage out into the woods before and I never received any profit for my labors. But I shall continue to blight the local forest in hopes that I shall make a profit from it.

>>67684

It's cost saving you dumb retard

>>67682

>x is filled with y so that means it causes z pollution

>water is filled with H ions so it's literally flesh eating acid

Yeah, apparently a self proclaimed internet engineer doesn't know that all power sources need transformers to deal with daily usage spikes, and shits on land allocation for power sources he dislikes, while completely handwaving how much land and resources his pet power sources eat up. The faggot then proceeds to point out how industrial materials are toxic(who knew?), and then lists two or three hazardous products as if anyone couldn't cherrypick and exaggerate various chemicals on any assembly process.

The presence of polluting byproducts means nothing without relation to the net total amounts of released pollutants, idiot. No amount of thumping your job title changes the fact that your claim is false, solar and wind is not more polluting than fossil fuels.

>comparing solar at its worse with fossil fuels at their best again

I already acknowledged solar and wind needs the right conditions to work. It's only net wasteful when meme marketing convinces consumers to install it in places where it will never acquire optimal efficiency. It's exactly like feeding a coal plant rough unprocessed coal and then whining that's its not working on paper. This fact plus your vehement anal pained criticisms of solar in unideal conditions literally shoots down your argument that profit reduces pollution, because right here is a case where pursuit of profit leads to a net pollution by misrepresenting proper usage cases.

>>67683

>autist types an essay that neither addresses the point or backs up his own

>brainlet eats up a wasted off topic retort because it supports his flag

>>67682

go back to your ranch with your """daughters"""

>>67684

You profited off the convenience and reduced energy cost of not having to find a bin for it. Self interest and the pursuit of gain pollutes the forest again.

>>67646

>>67682

Fucking dumbass

>>67689

But I didn't get any money how can that be profit?

>>67689

>Driving to the forest to get rid of waste

>More convenient than throwing your trash into a bin

You're not thinking like an economist, you're thinking in terms of market = evil and government = good.

On phone on lunch. Quick response.

>>67687

>Internet Engineer

Technician. "Technologist" if you want to be specific.

1) All sources need power transformers to translate the high-voltage low-current power from a generator into low-voltage high-current power for use in homes and facilities. You're mixing up that power transformer with a regulating power transformer. Not all forms of generation need one (or need nearly as complex of one if they do). Even if your claim were true though, you'd still run into the issue of how windmills need them at their base rather than at a dedicated facility because of the fluctuations produced in their general use. E.G. you still end up with more of them along a greater projection and ability to create pollution even ignoring the manufacturing processes of said transformer.

2) Even environmental scientists agree that one of the biggest issues facing windmills and solar panels is the amount of space they take up. This isn't a new issue, it's a flaw in their very design that can't just be overlooked.

3) Instead of scratching the surface, use your intuition and read between the lines like they should be teaching you in that liberal arts degree (I'd hope). My response was completely on topic if you had some reading comprehension.

>>67691

>falling for the fiat meme

shiggy diggy

>>67693

Why the hell would he waste resources driving to the forest to dump his shit unless it benefited him? Unless he's a retard of course.

He's obviously implying leaving his shit after going innawoods for a while. You're also thinking in retard terms if you can't get it.

>>67728

1) Doesn't mean shit if you can't verify that the total released pollution is lower. You want to pretend transformers don't all use the same principle? You want to pretend the material used for transformers isn't mostly the same? You want to admit you're a bullshiting armchair engineer before you start claiming your uncle works at Nintendo? Fact of the matter is that one process has negligible pollution during operation while the other actively produces pollution to function. You want to evidence a claim with something as stupid as picking out one of the thousands of hazardous substances on an assembly line, you get a response pointing out that all assembly processes can be cherrypicked like that.

2) Fossil fuels and older(almost all) nuclear designs have many more facilities and accompanying transport costs before final conversion to electricity. You count the mines, the refineries, the manufacturing facilities, the waste processing facilities, and the total land area will be much more than what solar and wind take up.

3) How about you stop being a projecting faggot and show you're actually worthy of being a STEMfag by actually reading verified sources, instead of cherrypicking sensationalist tinfoil hat crap out of confirmation bias. I was correcting all the bullshit in your post, and somehow you thought an assblasted essay filled with appeals to authority and strawmanning out of admitting you were wrong was the right response. It made you look like an idiot.

Also,

>technician

>he wasn't good enough to be a real engineer

>>67733

>Doesn't mean shit if you can't verify that the total released pollution is lower.

And why don't you have to prove that the total released polution from solar and wind is lower? Fact is, wind and solar energy require more transformers, coal energy requires combustion, both are harmful for the environment. Without someone running the math for me, I, as a layperson, cannot know which of these types of energy is more harmful for the environment, but what I already can see is that your claim is shaken. You had the prima facie evidence on your side, but now that pima facie evidence is gone and you have to step up your game.

>>67735

It's common fucking sense based on the underlying technology itself. Solar and wind harness energy that would otherwise be wasted or unused, that being the energy of the sun that would otherwise radiate out into space and the changing displacement of wind currents, which coincidentally is also due to temperature gradients in the air caused by the sun, which eventually dissipate as well.

Fossil fuels require the release of chemical energy of a substance, generally translated to electricity by work done by pressure of heated steam on a dynamo. Every chemical reaction creates an equal (molar) quantity of waste product, some polluting, others not. But the underlying principle is that waste (and pollution) will always be produced to harness chemical energy.

Efficiency mostly favours fossil fuels for energy produced, but that says nothing about pollution being in that favour, because at the end of the day, the solar/wind process doesn't produce waste by principal, but chemical fuels will always have an unneeded reaction product. Technology is also rapidly closing the efficiency gap, but our resident Christian luddite here refuses to believe that.

Considering that modern photovoltaics and wind systems have a functional lifespan of at least 20 years, for the same efficiency, you'd create 20 years of waste product for the same fossil fuel system. The christfag has to be grasping at a lot of straws to pretend that marginally higher manufacturing resources can make up for that level of pollution, let alone supplant it, especially from a component as ubiquitous as transformers.

Get fucked, kiddo. My base is as sound as the science behind it, while you layperson, can fuck off with your confirmation bias.

>>67737

>Every chemical reaction creates an equal (molar) quantity of waste product

You've never taken a chemistry class in your life, have you?

>>67739

You don't have a lick of reading comprehension do you?

A waste product is anything that is undesired for the process. In the context of a fuel source having its energy extracted, the desired product is energy, none of the chemical products can be used as fuel anymore, dumbass. They are all waste products, polluting, recyclable or not.

Another idiot trying to nitpick to distort facts. Strawmans are literally all you guys have.

>>67737

This kills the ancap

>>67740

Something as basic as the combustion of methane disproves what you said:

CH4 + 2O2 → CO2 + 2H2O

Of course, that's assuming complete combustion, which never really occurs, but it's clearly not equimolar like you claimed. Saying something so colossally stupid after attacking the other guy's ethos makes me dismissive of every scientific argument that you try to make.

>>67737

>It's common fucking sense based on the underlying technology itself. Solar and wind harness energy that would otherwise be wasted or unused, that being the energy of the sun that would otherwise radiate out into space and the changing displacement of wind currents, which coincidentally is also due to temperature gradients in the air caused by the sun, which eventually dissipate as well.

That tells us nothing about whether the waste products from transformers are even more harmful.

>Get fucked, kiddo. My base is as sound as the science behind it, while you layperson, can fuck off with your confirmation bias.

Then show me the science and not "common sense", you fag. And do something against that blood pressure of yours.

>>67741

>Mfw looters even steal their burns from the free market

>Mfw so mad about a low-effort shitpost

>>67742

Oh, nvm, you're talking about the enthalpy of the reaction, so what you said is even more retarded.

>>67733

"Real" engineer here. Go fuck yourself. Most of our work would be pointless without technicians.

>>67740

>Strawmans

He literally quoted you and said you were wrong. How is that a strawman?

>>67742

>>67746

>he can't into chem equilibria

Please count the molar mass of the substrates and the products, before you fail your next highschool chem class. You don't have to sperg about topics you just picked up as if you wanted to do anything but shitpost.

>>67743

>That tells us nothing about whether the waste products from transformers are even more harmful.

Then stop plugging your ears and closing your eyes you brainwashed idiot. If you don't have the brain cells to understand simple conjecture based on basic principles and would rather grasp at straws, you're literally deluded beyond help.

>Then show me the science and not "common sense", you fag. And do something against that blood pressure of yours.

Upset over getting called a retard for typing up something retarded? If you refuse to even acknowledge a post that explains it to you properly, then you've already conceded that you've lost the argument.

>>67745

>can't samefag detect

asshurt enough to respond to a counter low effort shitpost apparently

>>67747

>asshurt tech monkey

He went on a tirade against solar and wind, all the while plugging his shitty job, when I just pointed out he was tinfoil hatting on carbon and making unsubstantiated claims of solar/wind being more polluting than fossil fuels, when it defies basic principles on how the systems even function.

>>67748

You defined "chemical energy" as equimolar to "waste products." You never even mentioned reactants, obviously those will be stoichiometrically equal to products. I can post a picture of my Diploma for a BS in Chemistry with a timestamp if it'll make you feel better, though.

>>67752

So you're just nitpicking and plugging your "my uncle works at Nintendo" degree as an appeal to authority?

Which fucking one of your gripes challenges the statement I said when the total molar mass out of a reaction will be the same as what's going in? How does any of this challenge the statement that all chemical fuel sources produce waste?

Just admit you're an autist with no reading comprehension, trying to dickstroke over not being able to read.

>>67747

Oh, you were talking about the chem autist, not the retard christfag. It's literally a strawman because it's tangential to the argument presented, specifically for the purpose of nitpicking, and the meaning is clear enough for the watered down brainlet layperson. It's like an autist seeing you use the word "Ok" in passing then saying, your argument was wrong because you should have used "Okay" instead. It's the mark of straw grasping from someone who's had his argumentive view crushed.

The highest polluters tend to be developing nations who don't have more sophisticated ways of producing energy or producing goods and services. You see as countries become more developed the methods industries employ to produce will often decrease in the amounts they produce. This is widely known. If environmental pollution was considered an act of aggression against humanity then the biggest offenders would be the more impoverished and undeveloped nations like Indonesia, India, China, Nigeria, etc. Forcing the most egregious countries that pollute would unfairly hurt the most impoverished people in the world and force them to endure conditions that the developed countries were allowed to advance through. So no, it would not be right to invade and subjugate the undeveloped nations because they have the audacity to try and improve their own lives.

However, I would agree that pollution of one nation can often hurt another nation that does not benefit from it and that this is wrong. The phenomenon of Chinese air pollution affecting Korea and Taiwan is probably the worst example. In an ideal world countries who's industries produce negative externalities would be made to compensate the affected countries through maybe a kind of indemnity. Then when things are equalized and most of the countries of the world have a comparable standard of living, nations would be forced to compensate other nations for the pollution of their own industries, and then in turn the countries could impose a tax on pollutants caused by industry, which would encourage the growth of cleaner industries as a way to minimize costs. This is not ideal, as it would raise the price of goods and services to the consumers and lower the standard of living generally, but I think it's the most fair way of limiting negative externalities from pollution.

>>67745

Kek, hes really dead inside

>>67753

I already explained why making a mistake like that was relevant to your argument.

>>67762

>muh china

Literally china

>>67759

>>67760

How about you be generous and shove your fragile ego up your ass? If you weren't an autist trying to find an excuse to show off by posting general chem level crap, you wouldn't be so fixated over one bracketed word in one sentence meant to be a simple explanation for a self confessed layman. In which enthalpy energy wasn't even mentioned or implied, and the underlying concept which even you can grasp was understood. Literally none of this is relevant to the original statement other than as a deluded self masturbatory sperg about what you learned in class. Especially pathetic how you chose to mention random notations and processes just to sound smarter, as if compensating for the lack of any recognition for your degree in real life. You don't even disagree with the argument, you're just a self absorbed cunt.

If you seriously can't fathom the statement that fossil fuels go through chemical reactions that follow molar equilibrium and produce undesirables as a result, you might as well tear up your degree. It was all useless in light of your abhorrent reading comprehension.

>>67758

>shitposting out of spite

The wails of those with shattered arguments, eternally defeated, anally disturbed

>>67759

>>67760

How about you be generous and shove your fragile ego up your ass? If you weren't an autist trying to find an excuse to show off by posting general chem level crap, you wouldn't be so fixated over one bracketed word in one sentence meant to be a simple explanation for a self confessed layman. In which enthalpy energy wasn't even mentioned or implied, and the underlying concept which even you can grasp was understood. Literally none of this is relevant to the original statement other than as a deluded self masturbatory sperg about what you learned in class. Especially pathetic how you chose to mention random notations and processes just to sound smarter, as if compensating for the lack of any recognition for your degree in real life. You don't even disagree with the argument, you're just a self absorbed cunt.

If you seriously can't fathom the statement that fossil fuels go through chemical reactions that follow molar equilibrium and produce undesirables as a result, you might as well tear up your degree. It was all useless in light of your abhorrent reading comprehension.

>>67758

>shitposting out of spite

The wails of those with shattered arguments, eternally defeated, anally disturbed

>>67768

>>67775

Nothing says a hurt ego like pulling out a reddit reaction video on an imageboard while being lost for words. Of course you were reddit scum. Clueless autists are always reddit scum.

ancaps and lolberts talk shit in their circlejerks, but the moment they get btfo by facts its all shitposting and whining to the end. bunch of sore losers.

>>67789

>>67790

case fucking proven, not even aware of how stupid and immature they are.

>>67792

Seriously, you remind me of a Dark Ages Christian telling people the end is nigh. There has to be a neurosis to describe people like you.

>>67794

>putting me with christcuck subhumans

and youre a prime example of a frog in a pot, literally as stupid as the people who drown taking selfies with tsunamis. at least for you we reserve the term "retard".

>>67798

>How do doomsayers cope when their predictions go south? There’s a common thread regardless of how delusional they are. In When Prophecy Fails, a landmark 1956 study of cultists awaiting a world-ending flood, psychologist Leon Festinger proposed his theory of cognitive dissonance, which describes how people rationalize their continued adherence to disproven claims. The shrewder doomsayers do this too, but their rationalizing is often something like: all in the service of the greater good. You can’t blame them, really. They’re just making practical use of the paradox known to every politician who ever walked the earth: people will listen when you lie to them, and ignore you when you tell the truth. —Cecil Adams

>>67800

>thousands of studies improved by modern computer modeled simulations

>vs a conspiricy theory cracked tier website and a quote about christcuck fuck ups

literally evolution denier flat earth conspiracy theory level stupidity here

>>67801

Now that I'm home, I got a little time before I got to go work on them there CCNA Certs.

>>67687

>The faggot then proceeds to point out how industrial materials are toxic(who knew?), and then lists two or three hazardous products as if anyone couldn't cherrypick and exaggerate various chemicals on any assembly process.

Where did I exaggerate? Quote me.

>comparing solar at its worse with fossil fuels at their best again

Comparing outputs would be comparing it at its worst to fossil fuels at their best. I'm comparing peak efficiency hours. Fossil fuels handle peak efficiency no matter what hour it is. Renewables like solar and wind can't handle peak demand at peak hours. They can handle the shorter spike around noon, but they can't handle the spike around 6PM. Wind tends to decrease at sunset. Unlike fossil fuels, you can't "transport" renewable energy from one location to another except along a power line. This is a major defect when disaster and such hits. This is why even though I like my Nuclear and Hydroelectric, fossil fuels are not going away (they'll simply become hemp-based or microbe-based over the next several decades). The only solution environmentalists ever give for this is larger storage capacity or better technology. At least for wind, when we talk about technology you run into Betz's Law (I'm sure there's an equivalent for Solar) and there's only so many ways to "circumvent" it before you're using more material per wind turbine than you'll produce in its lifetime. In terms of battery storage, unless we suddenly pour a shit-ton of effort into graphene supercapacitive aerogels, the battery storage limit is theoretically 0.7 Mega-joules per kilogram (and in reality that's a decaying function as you make your batteries bigger and bigger).

You want "peak efficiency" though? Then fine, we'll use your "peak efficiency" without ever mentioning fossil fuels. Mankind uses about 15 Terawatts of electricity per hour, and that number will likely double if not triple over the next two decades. The most efficient solar panels produce about 250Wh under the best conditions, and have a surface area of roughly 64 meters. That means (rounding down) you'd need 60 billion solar panels to power the Earth (we'll ignore the future since even if the output doubles, so will the energy consumption of the world). Nevermind how one would even acquire the materials for this many solar panels that would all need to be positioned in the most sunny areas of the earth since a cloudy day fucks over this rough statistic. So that means these solar panels would take up roughly 1,482,600 square miles rounding down. This means roughly 1% of the earth would have to be covered in solar panels. To put things in perspective, all of the cities on earth only take up 3% of the Earth's surface area. Arizona makes up approximately 0.05% of the Earth's surface. This is the total Earth's surface as well since only about 29% of the Earth is land. So since you wouldn't be using the most efficient systems, and wouldn't be in the most efficient locations, and you fundamentally can't transfer solar power except over power lines and batteries (E.G. over short distances), we can assume that your renewable solar pipe dream is fucking worthless.

>>67804

Your poor mother

>>67805

You've gone and done it again, written two new blightingly long off topic essays that don't even back up your original claim or address what I said. You're completely deluded, and you don't even know what you're replying to or what point you're trying to address. Look back at the prior replies and get back to me before you waste another round of misdirected text.

>>67808

>>67805

I suppose I should clarify. What point of mine do you think you're addressing right now? Do you even know which argument you're making a retort against?

Of course you don't, or you wouldn't have sized up another off topic strawman if you did. You're deliberately assuming I'm some kind of cliche environmentalist and dropping and info dump aimed at this figurative environmentalist in your head instead of the actual points in front of you. And thereby, you just end up typing garbage that's neither here or there.

>>67809

Terrible fetish.

>>67810

Well, I need to go to work in the morning. It's been real.

>>67811

>Oh sorry, I forgot that solar and wind power can only be used in electrical applications for generating electricity, and nothing else. Oh dear me, it seems I've been #rekt by this sudden realization.

Is this sarcasm? Electricity is literally the intermediary to almost all processes.

>muh biogas as a counter example

Literally one of the most inefficient sources of energy from raw materials and more of a waste processing method instead of a fuel source.

>I said solar/wind were meme technologies because they will never advance past residential status except when the alternatives are banned

No, you said that solar and wind were more polluting than the fuel sources they replace. Which is outright untrue by principle unless horribly implemented. I corrected that statement, nothing more nothing less. You went on a tirade against the limitations of solar which I never made a point against.

>>67812

You typed that shit up, so it's your loss.

>>67811

>tinfoil hat conspiracy theorist larping as a technician.

christcucks are such pathetic jokes. all born retarded, all fucked in the head.

>>67817

>>67818

Suppose I should add that the whole picture you tout still doesn't support your claim and that nitpicking at biodegradability which is a once per multi decade event and often involves recycling, is straw grasping of the most desperate order

Seriously, you're a delusional fucking joke. Take that tinfoil hat off and admit you're outright wrong.

>>67732

To be honest, that interpretation does make more sense. I was assuming he'd live near a forest and just dump his garbage there instead of a trashcan right next door for those sweet profits from pollution. Really, listening to you guys, it sounds like polluting the environment was money printing.

If he means going innawoods and leaving his beer cans lying around, though, then I don't get your response. Why discuss with him whether that's profitable or not when you cannot effectively prohibit it anyway? Even if no one had ever heard of money, they'd still dump trash in the woods

>>67832

>pretending to be retarded when even the chirstfag admitted he was wrong

I can feel your rectal ravage emanating through every shitpost. I'll take it you're trying to concede you were wrong in your own backward layperson way.

>>67836

Litterbugs do get caught and fined. Even private property owners can implement this. It was a stupid analogy to handwave how pollution can be more profitable than preservation anyway.

>>67676

if it actually inconveniences you (for example lets say you are a fisherman and a factory umps shit where you fish and you cant fish there until they stop) then sue them, in the current system you cant sue them because its left up to the government but if they fuck up your property or livelihood you have a case

>>67646

>Environmentalists tend to completely ignore

Stopped reading there. Wanna know how I know you posted nothing but strawmen?

>>67624

we need to depopulate first

>>67778

>wambulance

>reddit reaction video

one of these things is not like the other

>>67778

>newfag doesn't know about the waaambulance.

LMAO all these fucking kids and reddit rapefugees who only discovered imageboards after 2010 need to at least get acquainted with our great history and chan culture.

https://encyclopediadramatica.rs/Waaaambulance

>>74987

>provides no argumentation or proof that a meme is comparable to reddit

Are we being raided by /leftypol/ again?

>>74987

>garbage outdated meme that never took off

>he wasn't there during the good old days

I pity you. You kids couldn't taste ancient memes first-hand, all you ever knew is "peepee the frog REEEEEE" and "feels guy wojack >tfw".

>you are a fucking piece of reddit scum

Is that something Jesus would say? No. That is not Christ-like behaviour therefore GET BEHIND ME SATAN!