Deme

I think they should have a duel and the loser has to resign

That was a very tone deaf response.

:DDD

Neither of the two planes that fell down recently were Boeings.

I’m a different person, that was my first comment here.

The way I see it, the discussion was about permitting others to commit acts which one considers immoral.

In the case of a vegan that might mean allowing someone else to eat meat, but the ethical dilemma is the very same as allowing a cannibal to eat a child. Does one have any right to intervene in their daily habits and societal norms, just because you think it’s wrong? If yes, why shouldn’t the vegan do the same?

I will say that I can’t claim to be a vegan myself. I just found your logic flawed.

Would you make the same comment if somebody else was eating a human child? If not, why?

“Just leave people alone to do their thing.” “Let’s care less about what others eat.”

Do you see how this very same logic could be used to excuse pretty much any diet or action?

Oh but the workshop is a co-operative and Santa is a union man. The man dresses in all red, has a beard like Marx and distributes goods without any financial compensation.

Hydrostatic equilibrium yes, but equal? No. We agree that centrifugal force is a factor. Now ask yourself, why would gravity suddenly strengthen at the equator to get the surface acceleration to stay equal to that of the poles?

It doesn’t. As a result the Earth seeks a new hydrostatic equilibrium, bulging out at the equator. This in turn strengthens the centrifugal force a bit while also slightly diminishing the force of gravity (because more of the planet’s mass is farther away). So the same effect is taken even further. Local differences add a layer of noise on top of this, but the end result is that the net surface acceleration is measured to average slightly less at equatorial regions than at the poles, with for example Singapore getting 9.7639 m/s2 of downward acceleration, while Helsinki gets 9.825 m/s2.

Sure, but the roads the enemy is using are a vast minority of all the roads out there, constrained to certain geographical areas. If one happens to be in the middle of it, they’ll have bigger concerns than whether to invest in a bike or a horse.

If it’s the apocalypse, then everyone will be desperate.

Eh, depends on if we go out with a bang or a whimper. I’m betting it’s going to be the latter.

If not, then it’s likely that nukes put a stop to the artilleryfest before it has a chance to really get going. And my point about there being a lot of roads in the world still stands. No military would start to target roads in any meaningful scale when they’re going to save their precious shells for the enemy.

There’s a lot more roads than there are cars to fill them and the good thing about bikes is that if you can get past an obstacle on foot, you can carry your bike while doing so. Even if the major highways get blocked by the occasional massive pileup that you can’t climb over while carrying your bike, you can always take the smaller road. And where would all the craters come from? How many artillery batteries and mortar companies do you expect to see in the post-apocalypse?

As long as there’s roads or smooth paths left, an ordinary person can do 200 km in a day on a bicycle. A quick search tells me that specifically trained horses can do 160 km in an endurance race. Sure a horse would probably be the fastest in a sprint, but a bicycle has the best travel speed.

A person can be rich in many ways. A coral reef is rich in biodiversity etc.

The rich refers to the group of people who are financially rich to an obscene extent.

So the lack of proof is the proof? Bro you have schizophrenia.

I’m not sure how you managed to misunderstand, but by disruptions I was referring to precisely the kind of disruptions of the lives of ordinary people that - and I’m sure we can at least agree on this - they have quite successfully caused.

Our two parallel discussions are about the methods of protesting against the use of fossil fuels. Our discussions here exists because of JSO. It got you thinking about what should be done to get rid of the use of fossil fuels, even if this was just for the purposes of making counterarguments.

You do realize that you replied to a comment just now that raised the issue of fossil fuel subsidies, and the effect those have on the price and thus consumption of oil? Just ending those subsidies would already have a dramatic effect.

It’s true that the discussion is currently centered on freedom of speech, most notably because of the most recent developments, but the issue that is being protested is constantly present in the background. I’m betting that after the criminalization of protests stops being news, that issue gets back into the limelight.

Direct action against fossil fuel infrastructure would be less in the public due to a less central location. Sitting on a street works because it’s a nuisance to many, thus generating a lot of interest among the press and that way the message gets amplified. Gaining publicity via industrial sabotage would be difficult unless they did somehting very drastic, which would only turn them from a mere “nuicanse” into actual villains in the press. Especially so if some such drastic measure leads to the unintended death or injury of a worker at a refinery etc. This would also turn the fossil fuel companies from crooks into victims and I’m betting that they’d also try to frame it as sabotage hurting the blue collar workers they employ. All this while affecting the actual price of oil in a miniscule way at most and alienating the majority of their members who don’t accept these acts. Nonviolence is held in high regard.

The process I described unfortunately does take longer than the initial lashing outs of the establisment. A couple of “martyrs” may not be the worst thing either.

YungOnions already provided you with some good articles about why and how nonviolent disruption works. I suggest you read them.

You approach the whole issue as if it were just up to consumers to stop oil by changing their habits. It isn’t. Switching to an EV isn’t a solution when you’re still paying taxes that go into subsidizing fossil fuels. (Switching to an EV for getting around in a city isn’t a solution anyways, use public transit or get a bicycle). Consumers won’t stop consuming oil until the full cost (including all externalities) of it is shown in the price tag. Action is needed at the political level, and that won’t happen unless enough noise is made regarding the issue. That’s what JSO is doing.

Disruptions cause outrage

Outrage sparks discusson

Discussion leads to political pressure

Political pressure leads to action that targets the oil industry

Mostly it’s just people discussing whether flour should be measured by mass or volume. Jokes about using some mcburgers per football field -esque satirical units, some joke about using moles instead. Some comment about a funny misspelling in the meme. Nobody is flying into an incoherent rage.