ptah

78 ms·

781.
by ptah 7y ago
possibly yes, but how likely is that to happen? I'm actually a proponent of living in shifts with offices and shops open 24 hours and people being in "office hours" at different times. it would solve a lot of problems with tr
782.
by ptah 7y ago
it is definitely a pollutant:"A pollutant is a substance or energy introduced into the environment that has undesired effects" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollutant
783.
by ptah 7y ago
I would assume there would be a threshold of some kind
784.
by ptah 7y ago
tongue firmly in cheek: people may actually be motivated to elect officials that cause them to scale back operations in their countries
785.
by ptah 7y ago
it looks like you can cut diabetes risk and mental health risk by switching https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-43711631
786.
by ptah 7y ago
I found it also helps to go to bed before that late night "second wind" kicks in
787.
by ptah 7y ago
risk for the individual is acceptable, and also preferred as it keeps the group strong in the long run. risks to the whole group should be avoided at all costs
788.
by ptah 7y ago
I am referring to things that have been accepted as truth in courts of law, not conspiracy theories
789.
by ptah 7y ago
How does this affect net neutrality
790.
by ptah 7y ago
no conjecture needed: there is definitely a risk of catastrophic climate change. the conjecture is:"what is money worth to us if we are all dead"
791.
by ptah 7y ago
yes, this is evident from claims that hillary clinton is a leftist when she is closer to maggie thatcher
792.
by ptah 7y ago
citation needed
793.
by ptah 7y ago
you would not just save 90k people. there is a chance of killing all human life with climate change. any size risk in this area is too big of a risk.
794.
by ptah 7y ago
when is the movie coming out?
795.
by ptah 7y ago
I think the writer is fishing for comments from people wanting more paul :)
796.
by ptah 7y ago
vegans are protected in the UK
797.
by ptah 7y ago
because the restaurant advertises that is has options for them
798.
by ptah 7y ago
not a jump, as you are implying that establishments that are not purely kosher/halaal/vegan but have options should be shunned by practitioners. this is intolerant and a form of pressuring others to conform to one's personal
799.
by ptah 7y ago
if an establishment wants to cater to both jews/muslims/vegans and non , they should do it properly. there are many that do this already. it is not considered a compromise by the tolerant ones as what others do is not a concern, j
800.
by ptah 7y ago
by your logic kosher and halaal people should not share restaurants or tables with non-kosher and halaal people
801.
by ptah 7y ago
they are tolerant of others choices not intolerant. are you opposed to tolerance
802.
Putin to U.S.: 'Economic egoism' is recipe for trade and maybe real wars(uk.reuters.com)
1 points by ptah 7y ago|0 comments
803.
by ptah 7y ago
Not for vegans as the harm to the animal will still weigh on one's conscience. It's about the spirit of the rule that you are voluntarily submitting to.
804.
by ptah 7y ago
I wish there was such a place :) Looking at things on a case by case basis is the only way. I would definitely say that things like harmonising regulations across different countries in a trading bloc is best left to bureaucrats as an examp
805.
by ptah 7y ago
for many it's too expensive to start families or to socialise
806.
by ptah 7y ago
we need some form of incarceration for corporations
807.
by ptah 7y ago
it's also a form of macho virtue signalling
808.
by ptah 7y ago
not everything should be decided democratically. a balance with bureaucracy is good
809.
by ptah 7y ago
This is pretty egregious for vegans and other with protected religious beliefs that prohibits consumption of meat/beef. what is the legal recourse?
810.
by ptah 7y ago
https://stopfundinghate.info/ is UK based and focuses on UK tabloids that use xenophobic exaggerations to increase sales

More ›