Ok but that’s about overall air pollution, while air pollution around schools is going to reduce that it’s not addressing the entire issue those stats are based on

Whataboutism, and I’d argue vapes and cigarettes are more damaging long term than cars passing by

The problem is the computer code needs to be coded by a human, so it is just as fallible to biases and manipulation

And if the Russians went for your country too would you shout “surrender” then too? Do you have the slightest idea how much speech and media is controlled in Russia? Did the “joke” of Putin’s political opponents accidentally falling off windows not translate in your head that that’s not the type of govt to allow to rule over others?

I mean Harris and “progressive and inclusive” aren’t necessarily one and the same, from the sounds of it it’s Harris that should be pushing more progressive, but in the context of this election I agree they should be voting for Harris

That is the opposite of taking accountability though…?

Why does the governor have any say in the judicial system? That’s fucked

Not over the voting choices but the choice at that point is a symptom of their view on life based on the political values of the party they voted for, you don’t vote before you embody at least in some form the values of said party.

It’s a good thing we’ve got people like you making that choice instead of leaving it to everyone to decide

Yes, but not in matters of space, but time. It speaks to the current state of Australia’s view on monarchy.

If I remember correctly they usually have more gamey meat

Does he have to? Seems like a weird peer pressure thing to invade his privacy.

The heck you mean “close enough”, 4% is not within margin of error, and even then this is a grave accusation to lump on an entire demographic.

“Primary” does not mean “always” however

What stats are you working off of for those 3 decade estimates? Either way the point remains, the sentiment of “we should’ve done X decades ago” doesn’t mean we should now be able to do it instantly, it just means we had the information and knowhow to start working towards it decades ago and we didn’t do it.

Yes but by asking to stop it a decade ago naturally the rest of the timeline moves too, so we should’ve had a more aggressive push against oil and gas 2 decades ago or more and transitioned much sooner to green energy.

So weird - what if you’re moving the goal post because you can’t admit that you realise I’m right? There’s no way to argue back against such an argument. Try to not just assume things about people’s subconscious, it can very much be turned back without a possible retort.

You’re being so pedantic, we both know what the article type is trying to do, it’s not aimed at people with the faculties to understand or research if the painting was actually damaged. People see the article as if they actually damaged the painting (because duh throwing soup at a textile material damages it usually)

But the painting is safe, that’s literally the point, relying on the media going for the shock factor while not actually damaging anything. Yet the law is pursuing it as if they did damage the painting, putting them in jail for years, which is not a proportional punishment for the crime of vandalising a painting frame.

Way to miss the point and insult me and my reasoning in the process.

My brother in Christ it’s your analogy