Very dense, yes, but stuff can be very dense and have low viscosity at the same time. Lava has a viscosity similar to peanut butter is what I’ve heard. You can push stuff down into it, it just requires some force to prevent the stuff from floating back to the top.

You could in principle walk on lava, either by moving quickly enough that you stay on top, or by protecting your legs enough that you could sink in maybe around knee deep where you would float.

I’ll be completely honest: I was on board the hype train. I thought it was awesome that someone was investing in EV’s and pushing them into the market. Hell, I was even fooled by the whole hyperloop thing…

I’m glad it’s not too late to admit that I was terribly wrong about the guy.

At the same time, I don’t blame those that were fooled back then, and I most definitely don’t blame anyone for having bought a Tesla and keeping it even though the guy turned out to be who he is. Some years ago he honestly looked like he was trying to do a lot of good, at least for those of us that didn’t look very closely.

You are aware that what Israel is doing in Gaza is comparable to the nazi treatment of e.g. the Warsaw ghettos… right?

Take a step back, and look at the Israeli soldiers mocking Palestinian dead, mistreating the wounded and captured, and shooting at clearly unarmed civilians for fun. All this while they brag about it on video. Look at that and tell me that it doesn’t give you a sick feeling to your stomach of the type you haven’t had since you saw photos of concentration camps.

There are dozens of children that have literally STARVED TO DEATH in Gaza because of Israel’s actions. They’re dying the same deaths that Jews were put through in concentration camps. Don’t you see the horrifying irony in this?

Israel is at a point where humanitarian workers from recognised international organisations have been targeted and killed, and they brush it off as a “mistake”.

I cannot think about anything in the past 70 years that compares to what Israel is doing, and I hope beyond hope that some force will smite their government and armed forces such that the slaughter will stop. Because it is a slaughter. It’s not a war when Israel is counting its dead on its fingers, while there are enough missing Palestinians in the rubble to fill a football stadium. It’s just Israel wilfully bombing, burning and slaughtering, with nobody stopping them.

All this, and you have the fucking audacity to talk about antisemitism? Take a look at the world, and ask yourself how calling for an end to this can have anything to do with the religious beliefs of the perpetrators.

Israel recognised Palestinian civilian and security control of the West bank in the Oslo accords from the 90’s. They are blatantly shitting on their own promises whenever a genocidic occupier or their enabling security forces set foot on the West Bank without express permission from the Palestinian West Bank government.

Lol, this is actually top-level trolling, you really know what buttons to push to keep people going.

I should have listened to you… I took the bait, but got out now :P

You’re making arguments to attack positions I’m not trying to defend, and you seem completely unaware that you’re missing the mark.

I’ve repeatedly tried to clarify this for you, but the way you’re blatantly ignoring my actual position, and instead making up proxy opinions that you ascribe to me and find it easier to argue against makes me think you’re either a troll or a pigeon. Either way arguing with you is rather pointless when you’d rather make up what you think my opinion is, and argue against that, than try to assess a position I’m actually willing to defend.

Nah, you’re still just making up opinions you want me to have so that you can think I’m an ass. Then you’re twisting my words in order to convince yourself I’m saying something I’m not.

It’s honestly kind of impressive that you’re able to go from “I respect people who are willing to risk their own well being in order to protect others, without care for personal gain.” to what you just wrote. Like… that requires some pretty heavy handed misinterpretation.

Now you’re just coming off as disingenuous. So that I won’t need to repeat myself, just read my comments and try to figure out for yourself where you can find backing for what your accusing me of instead of putting words in my mouth and purposefully misinterpreting my comments or taking individual phrases out of context.

Take your time, I won’t be waiting up.

Ok, I’ll try to make this simple for you: I can hold respect for a combatant that puts their life on the line in an effort to do something they believe is making the world a better place, rather than for personal gain.

The KKK is immediately excluded, because there was/is little to no sacrifice being made by those lynching others. The same goes for SS soldiers running a concentration camp. I was quite clear in pointing out that what demands respect is the act of putting your life on the line to protect or help others.

As for who put those regimes in place: That is completely irrelevant as to whether you can have respect for an individual who sees the atrocities committed by the regime, and believes they are doing good by fighting it. I have a hard time thinking that a soldier in Afghanistan is thinking a lot about who put the Taliban in power, or what they personally stand to gain from the fight when they decide to go there.

“All the troops, both sides” is half my point when pointing out that enemy combatants historically have often held respect for each other.

Yes, I respect a combatant fighting for something they believe in that’s bigger than themselves, people not fighting for personal gain, but because they want to give someone else a better life. That’s regardless of what side they’re on- even if they’re on the side I’m actively trying to kill.

This take just baffles me… you can disapprove of a war, and still respect people willing to put their life on the line for something they believe is right. Even in war, opposing sides have a long history of showing their enemy a certain amount of personal respect, even though they clearly disagree about something to the point of killing each other over it.

Your take is just condescending and unempathetic. You can respect someone for sacrificing themselves without agreeing with them about what they’re sacrificing themselves for. Regardless, it shouldn’t be hard to see how someone fighting to depose an infamously brutal dictator (Iraq) or a fundamentalist regime that stones women for wanting a divorce (Afghanistan) can believe that they are doing something good.

Check out the actual statistics on what women and men choose an occupations when both people-related and non-people-related jobs are otherwise equal. There’s quite a bit of evidence that men and women tend to prefer occupations in one or the other category.

Honestly, looking at how different men and women are physically, it is slightly absurd to assume that they are identical psychologically (i.e. have the exact same preference regarding people-oriented vs. technical occupations).

Did you read the text on that graphic?

… land conversion for grazing and feed …

I’m not talking about meat production in general (which I think should be minimised), I’m specifically talking about meat production from land that is not viable for other uses.

This was exactly my point: I’m legitimately interested in how that graphic looks if you consider meat produced on land that cannot be used for other types of agriculture, and which is local so that transportation is a negligible cost, and feed production is close to non-existent, because the livestock primarily lives off the land.

It seems like you’ve misunderstood what I’m trying to say. I’m saying that

A) There are legitimate reasons for a country to want to have some degree of self-sufficiency.

B) The environmental impact of producing meat is hugely different depending on how the livestock gets its food, and the environmental impact of transporting goods cannot be neglected.

C) There are countries with terrain suitable for livestock that cannot be used for farming.

Of course: Almost no countries are, or need to be, 100% self-sufficient, because we have trade, but there is a huge difference between 10% and 50% self-sufficiency. If we are to cut out meat entirely, many places would be incapable of maintaining any notable degree of self-sufficiency.

With you third paragraph, it seems like you actually agree with me. I don’t know how you got from me saying “there are legitimate reasons to produce meat”, to me saying this is a black and white issue. I’m explicitly trying to say that it’s not black and white, both because of self-sufficiency arguments, and because of the environmental cost of transportation. Thus, we need a nuanced approach. This means that we should minimise (or eliminate) the use of farmland for livestock production, without condemning livestock production as a whole, because there are legitimate reasons to have livestock, as argued above.

The basis of this thread was that livestock can be raised on land that is not viable for farming. Re-do the calculation when taking into account that the livestock wander freely ten months a year, and that feed is grown on land too harsh for all or most crops, and let me know how it turns out.

Take a look at a map of Norway. If you find a way of growing crops on rocks that are dozens of kilometres from the nearest road, and covered in snow 8/12 months a year, please let me know.

I’m not bringing up the state of access to agricultural land as some historical trivia. It’s just as true today as ever before.

The point is that plenty of countries/regions cannot be self-sufficient regarding food production without resorting to livestock. There are several reasons to be, at least in part, self-sufficient. From environmental considerations arising from the transport of food from other places, to food security in the case that conflict or crisis strikes the region supplying you with food, a region which you don’t control.

Stop acting like this is black and white, and that there’s absolutely no reason a country would want the capability of providing for its own people, as if that’s a thing of the past.

Which is why I said “in general, you’re right”. However, that doesn’t take away the fact that most livestock from some countries is primarily raised on land that can’t be farmed.

Speaking of supply chains: We could do the math on whether shipping a vegetable-based calorie from Brazil to Norway is more or less of an environmental burden than a meat-based calorie produced in Norway.

I’m just assuming that you are, in fact, aware that the likely primary advantage of inventing cooking was that the food is partially broken down before we consume it, meaning we need much less time and energy digesting it, which leaves us with more time to do other things, which is a huge evolutionary advantage. Right? Of course, every child knows that most animals spend a significant amount of time just digesting food, far more than humans.

Well, since you’re clearly a well educated person that knows these things, I can’t find any other reasoning behind what you posted here than that you’re arguing in bad faith, or trolling. Please either read a book or stop trolling. In any case, don’t post about shit you know nothing about.