The argument is against sociology and gender studies.

Then you have even less of an argument to stand on, because those degrees make up a tiny minority of degrees.

Our society is failing because we’re shifting a child’s dependence from their parents to the government.

You can believe whatever you like about the failures of society, that’s a different question.

Men don’t menstruate and cannot get pregnant. Women cannot produce sperm and don’t have prostate glands. Try all you might, ingesting what you shouldn’t, you’re still going to be bound by the chromosomes you were born with.

Those are things related to sex, but the question is about gender, a different concept. So that doesn’t answer the question, how do you know that there are only two genders?

Lefties are all about “trust the science, bro” yet when it comes to basic biology, often they’d rather rewrite the literature to fit some asinine ideology. HRT isn’t gender affirming, it is gender contradicting.

Science always re-writes itself to become more accurate than what it once was. It’s better to change to something less incorrect than to stay bolted down to something that isn’t close to being correct.

As for HRT, it is gender affirming because as I previously said, gender and sex are two different things. You are born with an assigned sex, but gender is performative.

You see emissions, we see livelihoods.

This is just taking a page out of Don’t Look Up.

Simply suggesting that people switch jobs overlooks the economic realities faced by millions of individuals.

Tough tities, maybe you should have thought about that before killing the planet. Your freedom to swing your fists ends at my nose.

Are you going to build the businesses that employ all the people who have no jobs? Probably just expect the government to do it.

I expect both the government and the free market to do so. The government needs to stop giving socialist handouts to the fossil fuel industry and instead put us on an exit path for our use of fossil fuels. The market needs to provide the replacement jobs.

Telling coal and wood fired pizza shops in NYC to reduce their emissions isn’t going to do anything compared to the military, the over seas shipping industry, the private jets, etc. Beating a dead horse.

That’s true. But that doesn’t change the fact that ALL of those sources of emissions need to cut down.

You think you’re helping, but you’re just making millions of lives more difficult, both the people you’re telling to get new jobs that don’t exist and the people you’re supporting overseas who have much less ethical employment practices.

So between:

• Reducing emissions - making millions of lives more difficult

• Doing fuckall - making billions of lives more difficult, millions more deaths, potential food chain collapse, and possible mass extinction level event

Between those options the second one is somehow the more favorable one? How does that make sense? And I sincerely have no clue what you’re talking about with oversea employment practices. When discussing with people it is best not to just assume what the other person supports.

Not sure which freedoms you think you still have when you’re being told to not leave your house, not get close to people, cover your face to muffle your voice and expressions

The neat part is, all of those things weren’t the source of the reduced emissions. So it is absolutely within our power to replicate the parts that reduce emissions without doing the things you just listed here that hurt people’s freedom.

But it feels like that just circles back to my original statement regarding chatting on the internet all day

I spend maybe a half hour on this at most, over the course of a few days, every few months. It’s nowhere near all day.

Assessment of a technology’s environmental impact should consider its entire life cycle, including the extraction of raw materials, manufacturing, operation, and disposal. Large-scale deployment of renewable energy projects lead to habitat destruction and harm to local ecosystems. Similarly, the increased demand for certain raw materials, such as lithium and cobalt for batteries contributes to environmental degradation and human rights issues.

No technology is “clean”, the sooner you face the facts the better off we’ll all be.

The resources our society needs to continue to exist far surpass what is possible to collect without habitat and ecosystem destruction. I am well aware that there is no such thing as perfectly clean technology. But we have technology that is far, far cleaner than fossil fuels. As for the lithium/cobalt mining issues, I don’t think we should be using those kinds of batteries for storage anyways. Hydro electric is clearly the cleanest form of energy storage we have, and should be the primary source of energy storage for electrical grids.

As for cars, we need to drastically reduce our dependence on them and focus on better city planing to reduce the number of long trips. We need that, and better public transportation. And for the times when cars are absolutely needed, electric cars are still overall better for the environment than ICE cars even if they aren’t perfect.

You absolutely shouldn’t try to infringe on your neighbor by forcing them to follow you.

I’m not forcing anybody to follow me. I’m just pointing our how absurd it is that we continue to rely on fossil fuels, and how absurd it is to claim that conservatives are the ones holding everything together. Conservatives are the ones responsible for our planet dying from fossil fuels. And given how much you’ve argued for their continued use, I think you’ve proven my point for me.

Forcing me and mine through legislation to invest in your capital ventures through taxation is immoral theft.

I have no such capital ventures. None of what I have suggested is new technology.

*, and the government subsidizing education

Education is the backbone of a society as technologically advanced as ours. Without it, our society will slip.

Is there some point you were trying to make here?