https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c2k574ydyyqo Trump signs order to get plastic straws back. I'm sort of with him on this. Paper straws just don't work. I'm all for phasing out single use plastic, but the alternative has to be fit for purpose. Also, as some on here (with a lot more knowledge than me) have said, it isn't the actual use of single use plastic that is polluting, but what we do with it after the single use.
One for a bit over £10k here, you didn't specify number of wheels. https://www.design911.co.uk/p/porsc...-wap060ebt0m00-wap063ebt0p00m-wap063ebt0p00s/
the problem with plastic straws is the microplastics. They quickly turn into the tiny toxic particles within all of us and particularly our wildlife. Same sort of issues as Teflon.
-10 Disagree strongly. There's alternatives to paper, we have a couple of packs of reusable bamboo straws plus some metal and glass. There's a need to widen the bans on single use plastic as on Bali where I've seen the improvement on beaches, at dive sites and in the streets and countryside. The poor reduce, reuse, recycle stats are in urgent need of improving.
I have never had an issue with the paper straws. And if they go soggy, you can lift the cup a little higher so it reaches your mouth!
Plenty of straw men and women in politics, in need of a brain, plus the politicians who use the straw man argument when their response to something is to refute something that isn’t under discussion (if I have that bit right).
I used to think that assisted dying, if properly overseen, would be a compassionate procedure to save dying patients from unnecessary pain. Now though I'm not so sure. The highlighted part above is almost a microcosm of my concerns in one sentence. Once the bill is accepted (and this one is already accused of being too vague) it is immediately open to amendments at a later date to cover other areas. This I believe, has already happened in Canada where people who are not terminally ill are also considered for, and offered, assisted dying. Leadbetter's determination to get this bill through quickly and with weak safeguards makes for an uneasy sense of foreboding.
I genuinely don’t know how I feel about this. A person’s lucidity, once they have started treatment for a life ending condition, will vary from person to person and asking someone who hasn’t spent much time with that person to determine whether or not they are lucid enough to request assisted death, would be, imo, wrong. I think the primary care giver, ie the specialist doctor who has been treating the patient, should be front and centre in helping to determine lucidity and to give a clear view of the patient’s life expectancy and quality of life, should treatment continue. From the moment my wife started to receive treatment for her cancer diagnosis, her mental capacity was impaired, partly due to the radiotherapy to her brain, partly due to the relentless chemotherapy and partly due to the painkillers she was prescribed. Even during the short periods of remission, she was still taking strong painkillers that “dulled” her thought processes, so she was never as sharp and precise in her thinking as she had been before the treatment had begun. My wife rejected morphine for as long as she could, having seen how it had affected her mum’s brain, but when the pain became too much to bear she started to take liquid morphine, along with a variety of other medications, which led to her having hallucinations as well as further dulling her thought processes. So, bearing in mind what I witnessed with my wife, I could lean towards someone being able to make the decision up to 12 months before their anticipated death, simply because their thought processes might be more coherent than they would be 6 months down the line when their body and mind has been further hammered by medication. BUT I think there would need to be provisos in place to ensure that they can change their mind and to prevent them from making a decision that has been forced upon them.
I agree. Just yesterday a guy who used to be a coach at the gym I went to posted a screenshot moaning about the incremental tax under Labour and “two tier Keir”. When the income tax rates haven’t been changed. He just fell for it - hook, line and sinker. Because he wanted to believe that Or the comments I see claiming Starmer is “Stalineque”. Which I have seen from more people than just Osvaldorama. Despite not really having passed much legislation. Ignoring 14 years of the previous government Or all the Trump worshippers (not just Os) who happily blame democrats and the left for all sorts of things that their god king has credible links to. Main one being screaming about sexual predators who target children and the Epstein client list - whilst ignoring someone who is a known friend and associate who they currently worship. They scream and attack actual religious ministers whilst claiming to be Christian and trying to somehow convince themselves that, of all people, Donald Trump has more authority over religious ministers than priests and some even think he was sent from God. It’s truly wild People believe what they want to believe and are reluctant to change that. In the case specific to this forum it has been shown more times than I can count that there is no evidence you can present that will change his mind. No threshold. No studies, no polls, nothing. And at that point discussion is a waste of time. Which doesn’t help at a bigger picture level (beyond just a troll on this board but with the population at large)
Trump who described Epstein as “a lot of fun to be with” and said they both shared common interest in girls “on the younger side”. Trump who has repeatedly said he doesn’t want to make the Epstein files public? That Trump?
I’ve just heard a clip of him saying he doesn’t want people working from home because they will be playing golf instead. Sort of like he does whilst president. The projection is ridiculous at this point. And all the main media outlet are terrified to call him out on it. (The other great myth peddled by the conspiraloons about mainstream media being against him)
Christ had a very low opinion of those trying to use God as a means to feather their own nests. Mark 11:15-18.
I think this video, about AI, with a voiceover by Stephen Fry, is possibly the scariest video I have ever watched. I have, in recent times, been wondering about what would happen to the world workforce, when AI takes over all paid labour. Would governments support the people or would they, in true dystopian fashion, cut them loose and build secure enclaves to protect themselves. After watching this video I think everyone is ****ed.
Trump probably is guilty of all the things he is accused of but that quote about him and Epstein both liking young girls was not how it was perceived in the comments I've seen. It was taken as they both liked beautiful woman and Epstein liked them young. “I’ve known Jeff for 15 years. Terrific guy,” Mr. Trump told New York magazine in 2002. “He’s a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side.” I'm in no way defending his behaviour, he's probably treated women appallingly but this has never been seen as Trump admitting to liking young girls. But as Gregg has already said, people will believe what they want to believe.
