@AFTSOV

@carnold03

...unnatural hair colors...

Does that mean you're okay with a brunette becoming blonde, or a blonde dying it black?

Genuine question

I've got to agree with @goodmansaysfuckyou. I'm a fan of women going with their natural color, but I'm perfectly fine with a blonde going brunette, or brunette going blonde, though I generally prefer gingers and redheads. As long as a persons hair is a hue and color known to occur naturally for humans; such as blonde, black, brown, red, ginger, grey, or white, I see no reason to be overly concerned.

However, if you come across people with hair that is either neon or every other known color on the rainbow outside of an anime or video game character cosplay event, you wouldn't be in the wrong to be weary of them. The same can be said of the obese, tattooed, excessively pierced or people with any varying combination of the four.

Dude posted links to his own posts, declared them awesome while ignoring the critiques and rebuttals that were posted, then blocked me again instead of engaging in any meaningful way.

This is the Conservative brand's cultivated mindset in a nutshell. I've experienced it in numerous completely independent off and online ecosystems I've substantially engaged over 3 decades now.

Whatever else its membership does and believes, the American Conservative brand has essentially become a death cult, that has wholesale adopted the values and morality of the fossil fuel industry and ruthlessly applies these no matter how obvious it becomes that doing so works against humanity long-term. Even mundane run of the mill conservatives who aren't interested in any of these topics, at this point support what has become a self-interested maniac with a clathrate gun to the head of every living thing on the planet, yet is tolerated because it provides a useful thing cheaply like a meta-Nestle. Only a small number of oligarch-class individuals at the top of this fuckpile will be shielded from the effects of ever-increasing fossil fuel use toward inevitable yet predictable bad ends, yet the rank and file who pay and suffer fight to accelerate this very system. Irrational death cult.

@destraht Carbon is emitted from the oceans when it warms. You speak as if this is something "the environmentalists" never knew or even considered, and that it somehow "solves" the matter of atmospheric carbon balance.

Reality is, the ocean is one of Earth's main mechanisms for regulating CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. The excess carbon that mankind has been unsequestering for almost 2 centuries has mostly gotten absorbed by oceans. That process has reached a point of saturation, where not only will future emissions remain in the atmosphere resulting in a persistent spike in CO2 and greenhouse effect, but ongoing warming accelerated by said greenhouse effect causes a net release of carbon from the oceans. Hello, positive feedback loop and runaway reaction!

As far as desert reclamation, I DID address that in my response to that post. You present it like some brilliant innovative idea the lefties never even thought of, when in reality all manner of desert reclamation and forestry restoration projects including urban forest heat island initiatives are constantly in the works. These alone, even scaled up 10X their current massive worldwide collective levels, will be nowhere near enough to process all the carbon projected to be burned over a few short decades, even IF the oceans still had decades to go before reaching the current carbon saturation point.

Right now there is so much dissolved CO2 that coral and shellfish struggle to precipitate sufficient calcium to make shells because of what carbonic acid does to the pH. Even at current high concentrations, the carbon can't and won't precipitate out as carbonates at a rate that could exceed carbon getting added to the atmosphere.

Absurd of you to think you can declare the whole thing solvable by "Just reclaim the sahara desert with an irrelevant sprinkle of Milankovich cycle woo."