I don't think that's true at all considering how we've exceeded those CO2 thresholds and global temperature thresholds that we should never get past. But please, tell me more.

Way to miss the point to go off into something tangentially related. For as long as I can remember, it's always, "if we don't make changes now, in x amount of years catastrophe will hit!" I've lived through most of those x amount of years so far, and catastrophe hasn't hit. Despite the environmentally friendly initiatives that have been done over the years, global green house gas has risen year after year. I don't think it's too much to ask to get people to stop scare mongering. You cry wolf enough times and people stop giving a shit.

It's almost Verbatim. "We're heading into a run away greenhouse gas scenario!" I get that it's important, but how many times do I need to suffer through my life time of hearing this same line? I bet 20 years from now this will still be used.

So what you're saying is that there are government and community programs aimed at making sure people don't starve to death as long as they don't "self-neglect".

Let's not pretend firearms aren't regulated, as many states do regulate them.

You argue like a child. "This stuff is bad because I don't like it!" You have zero objectivity.

I'm against GMO's until the owners of said GMO's stop trying to sue the shit out of farmers for incidental cross pollenization of crops. It's 100% out of their control and is a natural occurrence. If we could untangle GMO's from that shit, you'd see much less resistance to it.

I once worked for a company that asked its employees to do something similar. They opened up a forum so their customers could ask for help and discuss how to better fix the system that the modules we were selling them go into. - It was an after market repair company. There was a section for customer feedback they wanted us to fill up.

I laughed, laughed, and laughed some more. What ended up happening was the QA manager did all of this, pretending to be a customer initially, having a screen name so very similar to his actual name, which you could find on the "about us" page of their website. Then he continued to answer technical questions on the forum in a official capacity of the company under the same user name.

Sometime soon in the near future, everyone will be banned from everything for something they did that one time, that ultimately, no one gives a shit about.

From the study it's using, it describes 1. JUNK News, and 2. that junk news includes wrong, or misleading headlines and articles. The Guardian is literally junk news by their own admission.

You're full of shit. As someone else pointed out, you post the best you have. The evidence should always be looked at, and if it seems suspect, should be questioned. Why my original post got modded down as flamebait for calling you out for being purposely disingenuous is beyond me. In your next post you double down on being disingenuous.

It's clear you're not here to participate in good faith.

Why should it work that way? It's just an easy cop out to not provide evidence. If you don't feel like participating in the discussion, then don't participate at all, instead of proudly proclaiming that you're not going to hop into in good faith.

Especially since you can just pay them 77 cents to the dollar. They should be aiming to have all female workers.

I just want to add I'm not saying this in defense of the previous comments here. Just the idea that you let your prisoners of war go, during a war time, when you have millions of them, is mind numbingly dumb.

You would never win a war, you fucking dimwit. You don't let your ideological enemies go once you have them captured. What do you think they will do? Not take up arms against you the moment they have a chance?