![](/static/253f0d9b/assets/icons/icon-96x96.png)
![](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/675b216b-6fb3-402d-bee6-760e36a1b8db.png)
Also, unless the image is flipped, the text is meant for viewers on the opposite side from the camera.
Also, unless the image is flipped, the text is meant for viewers on the opposite side from the camera.
Animals raised for consumption generate 32 percent of the world’s methane emissions, and agriculture is the largest source of anthropogenic methane pollution. Methane is the second most abundant greenhouse gas after carbon, and it’s 80 to 90 percent more powerful than carbon in its first 20 years in the atmosphere. This is why many scientists believe that aggressively curbing humanity’s methane pollution would be the fastest way to slow planetary warming. And methane isn’t the only environmental problem associated with meat and dairy. Even though animal agriculture provides 17 percent of the world’s calories, it accounts for 80 percent of global agricultural land use and 41 percent of global agricultural water use, which translates into an outsize impact on biodiversity.
Well, an assumed connection between legality and morality is perhaps part of the disconnect.
Having sex with 16 and 17 year olds is not morally wrong *simply because they are legally considered minors and you an adult.
Having sex with 16 and 17 year olds is considered morally wrong, by some, because the state of their mental maturity is often far below that of an adult even 5 years older. Consider the biological “growth” of the human brain; having not fully developed, their behavioral maturity follows suit. This means their ability to reason, their ability to act in their own best interest, is less than your own. At a certain level of disparity, this imbalance is usually considered “taking advantage” of someone. Asking them to do things they have less an ability to understand than yourself starts to look a lot like coercion.
*ETA
I think it could very well be dissolving at least a coating. I would use more dilute IPA. 👍
Good point well made. I think it’s usually naive wishful thinking (for a “just world” that makes sense and is going to be OK, actually) that allows a liberal capitalist apologist to point to classical economics and say “see the companies are hurting,” but the companies don’t have feelings, and the owners and shareholders are feeling just fine.
I’m just saying that unless unfurling it would rotate it horizontally, the “kick” will remain on the right and looks like it would be meant to be viewed by those up “there,” behind the sign.