Philosophical Vegan Forum

EquALLity wrote:
And on the street, there was a guy yelling at a trash can. O_O Is this a regular thing in NYC?

What, that doesn'thappen anywhere else?

EquALLity wrote:^Yeah, I have her email. Her presentation wasn't really about individual ways to help the planet, though, it was more about her personal experiences with field work.

I thought she mentioned plastic cups? At least, reducing animal product consumption might be a better example that would be more informative, I think most people know about disposable cups. Even just adding it to the examples ('like avoiding plastic cups and reducing meat consumption') could be very useful.

brimstoneSalad wrote:

EquALLity wrote:^Yeah, I have her email. Her presentation wasn't really about individual ways to help the planet, though, it was more about her personal experiences with field work.

I thought she mentioned plastic cups? At least, reducing animal product consumption might be a better example that would be more informative, I think most people know about disposable cups. Even just adding it to the examples ('like avoiding plastic cups and reducing meat consumption') could be very useful.

She mentioned it because of my question; it wasn't in the actual presentation, though. The presentation was about her work in Antarctica, being on a show called 'Fish Warrior', etc..

Someone said this about nuclear power:
we never should have used it , the contamination of waste from it is forever in our relative time frame , there is no known technology to fix it , parts all over the world have become permanently contaminated because of it and fukashima is still a radioactive volcano with no end in sight , chernobal's containment chamber has decade , it centralizes power production and distribution in the hands of a few elite , it's one of the worst ideas we've ever had , short of making bombs out of the shit for the purpose of causing more death and destruction , also inbe4 'we need the power' we could have fucking done literally anything else to reduce our power consumption , make it more efficient , and generate more....

What do you guys think, cuz I certainly lack the knowledge necessary to refute this.

RedAppleGP wrote:Someone said this about nuclear power:
we never should have used it , the contamination of waste from it is forever in our relative time frame , there is no known technology to fix it , parts all over the world have become permanently contaminated because of it and fukashima is still a radioactive volcano with no end in sight , chernobal's containment chamber has decade , it centralizes power production and distribution in the hands of a few elite , it's one of the worst ideas we've ever had , short of making bombs out of the shit for the purpose of causing more death and destruction , also inbe4 'we need the power' we could have fucking done literally anything else to reduce our power consumption , make it more efficient , and generate more....

What do you guys think, cuz I certainly lack the knowledge necessary to refute this.

Total fear mongering bullshit.
What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. It's particularly dismissable when he can't even spell the names of the places he's making things up about.

Fukushima and Chernobyl are perfectly safe. Only slightly higher than normal ambient radiation. Right next to the reactor the radiation levels were dangerously high for a little while, but they're better now. Nobody needed to be evacuated, the evacuation caused more deaths than the largely harmless levels of radiation would have.

Here's an extensive source on Fukushima.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/fukushima-accident.aspx

Remember Chris?
As you know, he's a conspiracy theorist. And it's just so much fun to argue with him. Sometimes I purposely bring up a conspiracy just to get into a debate. We got into a debate about chemtrails..
BTW, the "Brown" part is a pseudonym from what he's told me. (He didn't use that word though).

Does anyone know if there's a term for the opposite of status quo bias?

Status quo bias is an emotional bias; a preference for the current state of affairs. The current baseline (or status quo) is taken as a reference point, and any change from that baseline is perceived as a loss.

So a term for the bias where people think everything is shit, and that things can't get any worse.

knot wrote:Does anyone know if there's a term for the opposite of status quo bias?

Status quo bias is an emotional bias; a preference for the current state of affairs. The current baseline (or status quo) is taken as a reference point, and any change from that baseline is perceived as a loss.

So a term for the bias where people think everything is shit, and that things can't get any worse.

Basically the bias of anarchists or Trump; tearing down anything and everything because they think it can't get worse.

Maybe a rock-bottom bias.

Hey guys, is it okay if I do a "HATE WEEK!" on the forum, like the amazing atheist did?
It's going to be about groups of people that piss me off politically and non-politically.

RedAppleGP wrote:Hey guys, is it okay if I do a "HATE WEEK!" on the forum, like the amazing atheist did?
It's going to be about groups of people that piss me off politically and non-politically.

I don't know what that is, but sure. Threads are good, they make the forum active.