i don’t think the nukes are where the drills take place, that would be quite stupid

let me put it this way: if you have money, time can be whatever you want it to be

the bible also contains accounts of god helping his people conquer land and uproot the residing population from it. I wouldn’t use it as a moral reference.

In fact, let’s be honest: there is no point in quoting any religious text, regardless of religion, when discussing morality. These texts are horribly dated and should be considered as historically interesting, but nothing more.

What data though? This article doesn’t contain data - that’s my issue. You’re right, it’s not asking fishermen if they think we should eat fish. It’s asking nutritionists if they like fish.

No. I’m saying that “77% of Top …etc” is a stupid way of conveying the importance of the information.

why does anyone care what experts think?!

That’s not what I said at all, is it? I’m simply pointing out that we’re reacting to a poorly written article which plays on our emotional side instead of discussing the actual facts. Yes, scientists doing research in an area believe that their research is going to confirm their hypothesis. That’s how research works. In this case, I’m surprised it’s not 100% to be honest.

The whole premise of the article is stupid. Not global warming, not the fact that we’re heading towards more than 2.5C global warming by 2100, not the people answering the questions. What’s stupid is the idea of “conducting an opinion poll” in that specific group.

I’m in no way a climate change denier and I too believe that the current path leads us there. However, isn’t it normal for 80% of climate scientist actively researching this to think this way? Would they not spend their efforts somewhere else if they would think this isn’t happening?

A survey among mathematicians showed that 80% consider that mathematics has the answer they’re looking for.

We need to discuss hard data and proper research, not surveys.

that’s a ridiculously superficial take on free trade agreements. And since 10 years have passed since then, you should be able to show some evidence of that happening, but you can’t.

this article is not about acts of human rights abuse, is it?

1. adding sugar to baby food is not necessarily illegal

2. there is already legislation which prevents companies from engaging in illegal activities overseas but it’s really not efficient since it is so easy to offload any illegal activity to a locally owned company. This is more about human rights abuse and illegal lobbying than product quality control though.

3. there is nothing forcing multinational corporations to act as a unique global entity when it comes to quality control and any attempt to enforce such legislation would just be quickly sidestepped with local subsidiaries.

Really, the only defense for the locals is the local government. As it should be.

have you actually read those links? First is a political statement from 2014 which starts with :

Germany and Europe contribute large sums of tax money toward various development programmes in Africa, Nooke explained, but the economic agreement with African states cancels out these efforts.

and it should be easy to see now that the guy was just playing his voters.

the second one is about britain post brexit

the 3rd is about the influence of other markets on the quality of products in the EU.

Which one of those actually proves your point?

Nestle most probably just buys local factories which already produce this crap and rebrands it. Even if Nestle would be forbidden from doing business in those countries, the locals would not be any better off. They really need their authorities to step in. There’s no other way.

America and the EU are imposing the economic and political order that gives those companies leverage over small countries and blocks them from consumer protection or worker protection legislation.

What on earth are you on about? The EU lobbies world wide for consumer and worker protection. Where are you getting your info from?

But as long as our major politicians are Republicans and neoliberals, nothing is going to change.

Those poorer countries have governments too. They should be the first line of defense for their citizens. Fuck Nestle and all their products, but the reality is that there’s absolutely nothing a foreign power can do to protect the people living in those countries

so kinda like “brave new world”?

this is feudalism, basically.

Yeah, “global elite” my ass. He found the perfect opportunity to protect his funders and give a speech that caters to idiots.

Side note: as a non US person, hearing US officials talking about a “global elite” makes me chuckle. My friends, you were the global elite since WW2 ended and possibly still are

Bone Tomahawk, heh, very few of us knew what we were getting into when we started watching. My partner went to bed and I just put something on. “Oh, look, a western. This should be nice and light”

the question was asking for personal opinion

The reason for extremism gaining traction is relatively known, but OP was questioning the more subtle “conservative”-leaning parties being in power globally (seemingly) for the past decade at least. That’s somewhat harder to explain. For example, it’s harder to explain how most western countries became neo-liberal at the end of the 90s.

Extremism gains traction when there’s societal divide with at least one of the divisions significantly poorer than the other.