I hope this monument to opulence fails miserably and the developers lose their shirts.
There’s no way they won’t damage or destroy that reef.
The first big storm is going to destroy much of the sand island.
But, 10% are special protection zones! Won’t matter, they can’t survive if huge amounts of the non protected reef are destroyed.

Not to mention sea level rise will put it underwater quickly, it’s barely above current sea level in the plans.

Look at Mexico, dozens of comparatively tiny resorts not even on the reefs, but on land, and that reef is not 10% what it was in the mid 80’s. Building ON the reef is guaranteed to destroy it, as is tourism.

I hate when companies are allowed to build on natural wonders to exploit the beauty, they invariably destroy that beauty within decades. That entire reef/coastline should be off limits to construction so the two desert properties have an attraction. When the reefs die from sun tan lotion poisoning, bleaching, sand displacement, accidents with supply ships, the first major fuel spill, etc, that place will be a $5 billion waste, abandoned to the desert.

Remember the “islands of the world” project in Dubai? This sounds even less thought out than they were, more ecologically disastrous, needing more infrastructure to be built, requiring ships to bring fuel as there’s no nearby port to run pipelines from (guaranteeing oil spills). All for what? So billionaires can get off their yachts for a while in luxury?

Wiki-Significant changes in the maritime environment [of Dubai]. As a result of the dredging and redepositing of sand for the construction of the islands, the typically crystalline waters of the Persian Gulf at Dubai have become severely clouded with silt. Construction activity is damaging the marine habitat, burying coral reefs, oyster beds and subterranean fields of sea grass, threatening local marine species as well as other species dependent on them for food. Oyster beds have been covered in as much as two inches of sediment, while above the water, beaches are eroding with the disruption of natural currents.

That was a $12 billion project to exploit the pristine coast and beautiful waters that no longer exist, the islands themselves are sinking and eroding, most were evacuated or never used at all, the water is now mud colored, the reefs are gone. An unmitigated disaster. This sounds extremely similar.

Oppose this and similar projects.

You got a very straight answer, you just didn’t like it. Ironic to claim something you don’t like doesn’t exist while arguing that something that doesn’t exist bothers you.

I’ll try again, but I can only explain it to you, I can’t understand it for you. Women can outperform men, so clearly there’s more to it than just gender, more than just the shape of your 23/24th chromosome. If there wasn’t, the worst man would always outperform the best woman. That being the case, discriminating based on gender is not just wrong, it’s illegal. That goes for trans people too, they aren’t excluded from having rights just because you seem to want it that way.

I note there’s no answer at all about excluding a group of citizens from publicly funded events. Don’t like that question I guess. No answer for it, I guess. Straight or otherwise. Last try to get anything resembling a answer at all.

Absolutely a blatant Red herring. I refuse to cooperate with your ridiculous loaded cherry picked false premise fantasy.
Try asking a realistic question on point instead of a loaded, ridiculous fantasy hypothetical you think makes your point. Your question implies that you believe trans women are just ordinary men.

If we pick the 100m sprint and had the two categories and trans people were allowed to compete with their current gender (with specific requirements, like they are), would you expect the trans athletes to always dominate?
Same question, but 50k race.

If so, why?
If so, explain why that hasn’t happened even though they’ve been competing in the Olympics under those rules for near 20 years now.
If not, what’s your point? I think I know, your point is that trans women are men, an ignorant, inflammatory, intentional insult to them and what they go through to be comfortable in their own bodies.
No surprise since you support just excluding them because you assume wrongly that a trans woman is a man in a dress. It’s ignorance and intolerance dancing together in your mind, making false assumptions and attempting to deny rights to others based on them. I might note, sexual orientation and gender are two categories that in America we are barred from using to discriminate against someone. I must assume you aren’t American, so what’s your dog in this fight? Just trans hatred?

Now explain why trans kids shouldn’t be allowed to compete in school competitions. Last try to get an answer.

Now explain how this is different from the racist arguments for excluding blacks from sports.

Edit: now explain why women like these need protection from other women….

@newtboy,

1. Given how few people are affected, I'd love to see way less coverage of trans-sports as a wedge issue to rally political bases

2. Failing that, isn't it clearly 100% common sense that the Men's and Women's sports divisions are NOT divisions applied based upon gender but instead upon biological sex, and as such should always have been a non-issue.

3. I really can't see the issue, if it must be raised, as anything other than a request for special exemptions to be made. Existing competitive sports are divided based on biological sex and most have requirements around usage of drugs, hormones and other performance enhancing substances. We have existing and established testing for both the biological sex and PED requirements. Applying those equally to everyone IS equality.

/s There, now the debates all settled /s

If that were true for everyone, there would be no children in foster care.

It doesn’t take children to expand your limits, they just give you no choice. I found I can go weeks on < 5 hours sleep a night all by myself, I became more patient just by getting older, I’m more compassionate because I’m not a thoughtless teenager anymore, no child required. I also retained my sanity (what little I started with).
Sure there are some good times for the parents, but not so much for the public at large. Overall making more people with the massive glut of humanity that exists has a negative value. I wrote a thesis on this, called “the fallacy of the intrinsic value of human life”. Got an A. Horrified my writing class. Double win!!

I much prefer methods that don’t require inhuman suffering….like not making more in the first place. I suppose if I’m honest I believe it’s too late for that. Just like our consumption of oil that we know for a fact is killing us, our population continues to grow even though we can’t support the people already alive without mortgaging everyone’s future to do it temporarily.

We are driving at a cliff, seeing it’s there and being terrified….and just keep hitting the accelerator anyway. Humans don’t deserve a planet.

What’s he mean “young people”? I’m 50, I’ve felt that way since 1990 because I pay attention. We are addicts, addicts use until they die, they don’t quit because their health suffers.

At 3 degrees some developing countries won’t be able to feed their population!?! WTF?! That was the case before any climate changes, dummy. It’s bad now. It will be apocalyptic relatively soon…like decades, not centuries.

WILL cause trillions in damage!?….guess again, already happened. It WILL cause tens of trillions in damage per year, eventually outpacing global gdp.

What scientists are he counting when he says “most agree” we won’t see this kind of future? Certainly not climate scientists, they agree it’s happening, and none see it even slowing, much less getting better. From what I saw, they just went on strike because they’re sick of being ignored.

Leveled off, eh? Look at your own graph to see that China’s coal consumption went up by 5000 twh equivalents since 2010, and is insanely massive…it went up by more than the US used at its highest levels (in his timeline). But he calls that “leveled off”. Who is this guy? He’s insane or lying through his teeth.

Solar and wind have been better than coal economically for decades, but we haven’t switched over, have we?

Where does he get his statistics, because every time I see real numbers we’ve only slowed our increased emissions by 4%, we have not actually reduced them….like saying Obama reduced the military budget because he didn’t increase it as much as previous administrations. It’s asinine.

India isn’t building trillions in solar, they’re building fossil fuel power plants and hydro electric, also disastrous for the environment….and useless after their glaciers fail.

The CO2 in the atmosphere will be there for 300-1000 years, carbon capture is a ridiculous pipe dream that completely ignores the scope of the problem. Methalhydrate is already destabilized, and it’s 25 times as potent as CO2. The total global amount of methane carbon bound up in these hydrate deposits is in the order of 1000 to 5000 gigatonnes – i.e. about 100 to 500 times more carbon than is released annually into the atmosphere by the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil and gas). It’s melting now faster every day, and will surpass human carbon emissions.

None of his “requirements” are happening. What we need is less people….like 90% less.

Progress is being made, minor progress in small amounts on tiny scales…so are increases in emissions but on massive scales and unfathomable amounts….emissions that needed to be at zero decades ago to save civilization as we know it. Climate refugees exist today in huge numbers, think how difficult 1 million Syrians were for Europe to absorb, now multiply by 2000 or more when all equatorial nations become uninhabitable. Where will we grow food with refugees covering every bit of land? Get real.

He admits that stopping warming below 1.5 degrees is impossible, and 3 degrees before 2021 likely (many say by 2050). Did he forget that 1.5 degrees warming is where we lose control and feedback loops make our emissions moot?

Do you even science, dude?

He gave me zero hope, because I know most of his pie in the sky “hope” is utterly ridiculous and runs contrary to reality and human nature. I wanted some good news, I got pablum.
Booo Kurzgesagt. Try being honest and not ignoring the facts, please. BOOOOO!

And…. Mark Meadows, Trump’s chief of staff, committed voter fraud.
He rented a shack in N Carolina and claimed it was his home. He registered to vote from that shack. He never visited the home, and no one stayed the night there while he rented it.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/why-did-mark-meadows-register-to-vote-at-an-address-where-he-did-not-reside

He lied about it being his residence, and voted illegally in N Carolina. Voter Fraud…by your guys.
Lock them up for years, and it’s definitely time to require any registered Republican to verify both their residence and identity by random physical checks and DNA testing at their expense. Voter ID is needed for your party, and a fake driver’s license is too easy to get to count.

You want secure elections, don’t you? Then you obviously want special requirements for the group that tried to commit massive election frauds….that’s Republicans.

Or can you admit you’re completely hypocritical and don’t care about all the voter fraud now that you know it was all Republicans perpetrating them?

I expect no answer, because there isn’t a good answer for you.

BTW, strong leader Biden just announced a ban on Russian energy products. Good for Tesla. Yes, it will hurt, gas prices will rise. Freedom isn’t free, and if you don’t chip in your buck 0 five, who will?

The problem is my disabilities. I can't hold the controllers well. I prefer big clicky keyboards and and mouses that doesn't require me to hold!

Derp de derpitty derp…..

Curious….
In your delusional mind, did Trump cheat on his wives?
Cheat on his taxes?
Run fraudulent businesses?
Run fraudulent charities?
Withhold congressionally approved military aid from Ukraine as Putin attacked and invaded them?
Bow down and capitulate to Putin at every turn, even when it meant choosing Russia over America and our allies interests?
Suggest ending NATO?
Foment a coup?
Try to subvert democracy by dictating the results of an election instead of accepting them?

You are so divorced from reality that I bet your answer to every question is “no”, but reality is he undeniably did everything listed, often bragging about it. You have absolutely zero facts in your arguments because facts and reality make you the fool every time….an unbelievably consistently ignorant cultist fool deep in the platform free cult of personality that is the Republican/Trump Party.

Again, better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt. Too late for you, buddy. There’s absolutely no doubt left.

I know you are incapable of retracting your idiotic statement, that would require you to admit you’re w-w-w-w-wrong….something you are completely incapable of, like most two year olds.

Holy shit, man. Look at yourself.

It stopped because it severely injured and/or killed some people, and the only right thing to do is stop, check on them, and render aid if required.

Now think about the waste of skin you have to be to need that pointed out.

@newtboy,

Finally we're talking about my Canada .

I'm agreed with calling 90% of what the convoy and truckers are protesting as being misguided, ill informed or flat out wrong. That however shouldn't be what the right to protest is based upon.

The extent of the protestors illegal activity seems to have been blocking of roadways and borders. Which in Canada isn't exactly new:
-Blockading of roads to logging work sites to "protect old growth forest"
-Blockading of roads pipeline construction sites
-Blockading of transportation highways and railroads

In the past 2 years alone, those various sites have seen blockades ranging from weeks to months. In virtually every single one of those instances the Liberal government went out to meet and negotiate with the protestors while allowing them to continue for weeks to months. In one of the biggest protests Trudeau himself went to meet with the groups in person. Trudeau has a video of himself praising the farmer convoy and blockades in India, declaring his government will always defend the right of groups to protest.(those groups blocked multiple border crossings)

This time though, Trudeau started out with insulting, ridiculing and belittling the protestors. Within the first day of the protests, politicians and our national news corp in CBC were demanding an immediate end to the protests.

The protests that have seen comparable zero violence to the protests in the US in support of Floyd(which I support), where condemned repeatedly by the CBC and Trudeau as terrorizing the populace and inciting violence. For reference, Trudeau remained steadfast in support of the Floyd protestors right to protest.

The federal government essentially tried insults and ridicule to try and end this protest though, and when that didn't work they invoked a national emergency measures act that requires both:
-A threat to Canada's sovereignty
-A threat that can not be addressed by any other laws or means

The government then proceeded to empower themselves to not merely arrest protestors, but to freeze/seize the bank accounts of anyone considered to be supporting the protest, with no court oversight required.

The difference in how protestors are treated based upon what it is they are protesting is alarming and should be a red flag for anyone and everyone.

For reference, while these protests were going on, a pipeline worksite in BC that has been continually shut down by protests for the last several years was attacked in the night by a mob wielding machetes and axes. The workers and security were chased off and millions in damages were done to the site afterwards. Trudeau didn't feel the need to even address the incident though because he was to busy villianizing the convoy. The CBC media buried the incident under local BC news, and downplayed it as an 'alleged' incident, despite RCMP having responded and even having had an officer injured in the incident. CBC also emphasized there wasn't any verified connection to the ongoing protests against the pipeline...

When you look at the narrative, despite my disagreeing with the vast majority of what the convoy is wanting to say, I am disgusted by the attempt to remove their right to say it and everyone wanting to support a strong democracy with the right protest should feel the same.

It’s hilarious to me that the right wing has become so cowardly and infantile that it has absolutely lost it’s shit and given up pretending they aren’t totally racist fucks all because of a law school course discussing incontrovertible systemic racism like people being labeled 3/5 of a citizen and not having the right to vote that their false jingoistic history requires them to deny.

Anyone complaining about CRT should be forced to define it and give examples of it being taught in grade school, then popped directly in the mouth for being a bold faced racist liar.

Whoever came up with the CRT lie is to be commended, it tricked the right into bringing their racism out front as their main party platform. Opposing CRT means anyone calling themselves Republican or right wing has just declared themselves a stupid dishonest racist fuck that can be ignored and ridiculed into suicide without qualms.

A German mark had value….until it didn’t. Your opinion of “fiat money” isn’t universal by any stretch. You say it’s universally better. I wholeheartedly disagree, and point to Germany and Venezuela as proof. They aren’t outliers either, (looking at Africa).

Gold is useful and valuable. Digital footprints aren’t. Paper notes aren’t. Printed circuits, connectors, anti oxidation, actual physical money, jewelry, etc. gold has intrinsic value, a dollar bill has about 13210 joules, so its intrinsic worth is about 1 small 1 gram stick as kindling and little more….no matter if it’s a $1 or $500 bill or a check for billions. Again, see Germany, where bills were more valuable as firewood than money.

This deflation idea again. Give me 3 examples of deflation harming/ending a nation on the gold standard please, I’ve never heard of it happening. (Edit: as far as I can find, I’m no economics professor, for the most part the gold standard was abandoned worldwide in the early 1930’s and the last remnants removed in the early 70’s by Nixon)

Explain how unsecured notes guard against speculation….don’t just claim it. I don’t see it, people made a mint short selling Venezuelan (and other failed) dollars….speculating they would crash….they did. What?

GDP is the metric that imparts value to unsecured notes offered by countries.

I think you had a mini stroke, the paragraph starting USofA is a word salad with no meaning.

Name 3. I named Germany post ww1….they didn’t get to borrow or ignore their debts. What are you talking about?

So, the only ones that don’t/can’t borrow are all the ones that need to.

Pretending basing your dollar on Bitcoin is the same as basing it on gold is outrageous idiotic bullshit. Just nonsense. Utterly moronic and pure fantasy. Don’t try moving the goalposts, that’s what you said.

Yes, the fed will take gold. They don’t take Bitcoin, do they? How about shells? Pebbles?

Jesus, you just want to argue. You’re rambling, switching positions and going off on tangents.
It’s not about whether someone might accept it, it’s about whether it’s universally accepted at one value and about holding its accepted long term value. People once gladly accepted beanie babies as payment….stupid people.
Arcata Ca printed up Arcata dollars….you could get them cheap, businesses took them. Wanna put your nest egg into them? You say that’s good money, as good as dollars. I’ll sell them to you for gold, and let’s see who’s doing better in 10 years. Or I’ll sell you pebbles for gold. Any currency you want, I’ll sell you for gold. How’s that working with pebbles or shells? Can you buy currency with them?

It has everything to do with how much it’s worth. Stop jumping subjects because your point is failing to convince. An economy based on pebbles fails because their neighbors don’t value pebbles, but if their pebbles are gold, they succeed because gold is valued universally.

What are you talking about, the gold standard’s ability to keep up? Huh?! No keep up necessary, no slow down required, gold trades exactly as fast as everything else. What is this nonsense?!?

You mean you can’t overspend and go deep into debt?! And that’s bad?! In your opinion, not many economists….and what makes you think you can’t borrow against gold? Secured loans are easier and cheaper to come by. WHAT?!?

Yes, unsecured paper money can just be printed forever, you CAN “sell the universe”. (Or sell dollars who’s overall value is based on your country’s value) over and over, then print more and sell 9/10 again, print more, sell again. Eventually that money is worth less than it costs to print, and your creditors get paid off in dollars worth a tiny fraction of what they lent you. Not if it’s backed with gold.

Miracle cure?!? Quote it. I think you misread. Secured notes being better than unsecured notes is not “miracle cure” or perfection, it’s just measurably better, safer, and more stable. No system is perfect.

I assume you support the anti vax trucker protests and want to see them here?

Can you explain why?

Can you explain why it’s good for white truckers to protest against health and safety policy … to demand freedom from mandates requiring them to be adults and get vaccinated to save lives, costing hundreds of millions already and intentionally shutting down multiple industries with the goal of hurting the economy as much as possible….but bad for BLM to protest against racist police policies, demanding freedom from being put in prison or murdered with impunity by police for nothing beyond fear of their skin color, protests doing WAY less damage to economies, industry, and commerce? (Portland, which the right claimed was on fire all of 2020, estimated total costs at $23 million, <1/2 what Ford alone lost from the truckers so far).
BLM protests that, in fact, were more successful at changing policy….policy that needed changing unlike the mandates that need strengthening.

So…on board with truckers, or can you avoid blatant (most likely racist) hypocrisy?

Ok. I admit that’s unnecessary and confusing.

A bit more than a rewording, a complete overhaul from the current American system. Never expect us to be reasonable or simple in our plans like our northern cousins can be.

I agree, without a means test, income limits for participation, assistance programs can’t be funded enough to actually help the needy and hand out the same amount to the well off. Those plans are nuts IMO.

I understand your issue with UBI. I support it in the sense of a safety net, no one should be forced to live on less than $X and IMO there should be no requirement besides no/low income….but to function that requires those who already make over $X to get nothing and just be happy they won’t be mugged for food money. I don’t support the “here’s a free $500 for everybody”, inflation would make it meaningless in a year, more circulating dollars with no more in the treasury/total value = inflation on top of your valid points.