🧵 cows are carbon beneficent.
Anonymous at Wed, 19 Jun 2024 12:16:27 UTC No. 16242528
Anonymous at Wed, 19 Jun 2024 12:21:14 UTC No. 16242536
Aww
Anonymous at Wed, 19 Jun 2024 12:56:13 UTC No. 16242556
Cute
Anonymous at Wed, 19 Jun 2024 12:57:27 UTC No. 16242557
>>16242528
I love cows.
Anonymous at Wed, 19 Jun 2024 13:57:11 UTC No. 16242585
Cute cow!
Melo at Wed, 19 Jun 2024 14:35:55 UTC No. 16242607
Cows are carbon grey
Anonymous at Wed, 19 Jun 2024 14:47:01 UTC No. 16242622
>>16242607
Remember when people thought the world was going to end because of cow farts?
How did people ever believe that Godless communist climate alarmist propaganda anyway? I guess because they showed movies like "Inconvenient Truth" in schools, which was only released after Al Gore invested in a bunch of "green" companies. Lot of money to be made in "green" products, even if everyone is creating immeasurably more waste to buy it all or if you have to rape the earth to make those "green" products.
Melo at Wed, 19 Jun 2024 14:48:41 UTC No. 16242624
>>16242622
Ok. My mind shouldn't do it then when I leave it up to it.
Melo at Wed, 19 Jun 2024 14:50:07 UTC No. 16242627
>>16242622
Good, I like this idea.
Anonymous at Wed, 19 Jun 2024 16:14:39 UTC No. 16242719
>>16242528
I don't give a shit about carbon. All of the energy cabal must die. Yes, renewables too, fuck off.
Anonymous at Wed, 19 Jun 2024 16:24:44 UTC No. 16242738
>>16242622
>unironically posting this image
>on /sci/
Anonymous at Wed, 19 Jun 2024 16:36:55 UTC No. 16242755
>>16242719
based dark ages luddite retard. Imagine current year society with no guard rails. What a show!
Anonymous at Wed, 19 Jun 2024 17:40:20 UTC No. 16242836
>>16242528
if cows were LE HECKING ENDING THE WORLD.
that this planet should've been gone millions of years ago.
these onions want to divert peoples attention to shit that doesn't matter while flying in their jets and destroying nature to create monocrop goyslop.
Anonymous at Wed, 19 Jun 2024 18:14:04 UTC No. 16242895
>>16242528
we are gonna die anyway so who fucking cares
Anonymous at Wed, 19 Jun 2024 18:19:16 UTC No. 16242907
>>16242755
>WE NEED TO CONSOOOOOOM
>WE NEED MORE PAJEETS, MORE NIGGERS, CONSOOOOOM
Anonymous at Wed, 19 Jun 2024 18:22:57 UTC No. 16242913
>>16242907
>p-please my family is getting killed by raiders
>don't fret it, anon I'll go get my horse help will be here in 3 hours.
Anonymous at Wed, 19 Jun 2024 18:59:24 UTC No. 16242959
Cows are carbon.
🗑️ Anonymous at Wed, 19 Jun 2024 19:15:30 UTC No. 16242979
>>16242528
Only if you raise them in conjunction with very carefully managed diverse grasslands, and in the right areas. Factory farming is both cruel and incredibly damaging to the environment.
🗑️ Anonymous at Wed, 19 Jun 2024 19:16:32 UTC No. 16242980
>>16242622
You're fucking retarded, go back to Africa
Anonymous at Wed, 19 Jun 2024 21:03:01 UTC No. 16243139
>>16242913
>p-please my family is getting killed by raiders
>My sister is not a virgin anymore, can you bring your sister to satisfy mbubba and his cousins? Also my house is not big enough for them and I have nothing but my cuckshed to live in. I am worried they will be cold in winter because the windfarm shat itself and isn't outputting enough energy, I think we will need 5 more nuclear plants.
Anonymous at Wed, 19 Jun 2024 21:57:14 UTC No. 16243210
>>16243139
>energy is why I can't afford a house
What? Also, yes build all the nuclear power plants. Obviously.
Anonymous at Thu, 20 Jun 2024 08:47:30 UTC No. 16243813
>>16242979
>I am the savior of all animals!!!!
>I am the savior of Mother Earth!!!
https://www.healthline.com/health/s
Anonymous at Thu, 20 Jun 2024 08:53:14 UTC No. 16243816
enjoy your vCJD
Anonymous at Fri, 21 Jun 2024 04:58:21 UTC No. 16245097
>>16242622
Nobody believes that stuff. The government friendly media publishes lies and then the people in the government use those published lies as justification for saying "everyone believes this therefore we should act on it" even though nobody believes it, not even the people who published it.
Anonymous at Fri, 21 Jun 2024 08:02:29 UTC No. 16245242
>>16242528
>cows are carbon beneficent
Explain please.
Also, this is at least the second thread you open on this topic, with the same exact image.
But please, do explain what you mean.
🗑️ Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 03:01:27 UTC No. 16246680
>>16243813
What? The only thing I want to do is eradicate worthless retards like you.
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 04:30:53 UTC No. 16246819
🗑️ Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 05:07:56 UTC No. 16246879
>>16246819
Brown
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 05:55:05 UTC No. 16246952
>>16242528
BRANDONN GET BACK TO THE HOUSE
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 07:19:36 UTC No. 16247043
>>16242528
>>16245242
OP, I asked you a question.
Whatever it is that you're trying to get across, no one will believe you unless you explain your reasoning properly.
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 07:33:07 UTC No. 16247055
>>16247043
It's a spambot you retard.
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 21:33:57 UTC No. 16248207
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 22:31:50 UTC No. 16248302
>>16247055
Maybe, but I can do 1 post troll threads dor shits and giggles too.
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 22:32:50 UTC No. 16248304
>>16248207
I see that, what about it?
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 23:03:50 UTC No. 16248378
>>16242528
> cows are carbon beneficent
Unintelligible premise, are you implying animal agriculture is a carbon beneficent? That's just untrue then
🗑️ Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 23:23:32 UTC No. 16248421
>>16248378
Low functioning autist detected.
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 23:39:30 UTC No. 16248442
>>16242528
Methane is a serious green house gas.
🗑️ Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 23:44:30 UTC No. 16248452
>>16248442
There were 60 million bison in North America before Europeans got here and as far as I know there weren't any climate issues from them. There is not any inherent issue with large ruminant livestock, their emission issues can be solved with changing the incredibly brutal and dirty ays in which we raise them.
Anonymous at Sun, 23 Jun 2024 07:44:29 UTC No. 16248920
>>16248207
more greenery does not necessarily imply a carbon sink, you understand that?
Anonymous at Sun, 23 Jun 2024 08:16:25 UTC No. 16248950
>>16248207
https://foodplanetprize.org/initiat
https://www.patagonia.com/stories/a
Anonymous at Sun, 23 Jun 2024 14:37:32 UTC No. 16249207
>>16242528
would it hurt me if i pet it?
Anonymous at Sun, 23 Jun 2024 14:38:32 UTC No. 16249209
I can't wait to have that little guy on my grill
Anonymous at Mon, 24 Jun 2024 06:44:17 UTC No. 16250441
>>16249209
His skin will also make nice jackets, boots and gloves to keep you warm during the winter too.
Anonymous at Mon, 24 Jun 2024 08:28:44 UTC No. 16250512
>>16242979
>in conjunction with very carefully managed diverse grasslands, and in the right areas
You put them in marginal land and manage their habits (ie rotate their grazing and spread out their shitting) in ways that produce new diverse grasslands or croplands where marginal land once sat idle.
Anonymous at Mon, 24 Jun 2024 08:31:37 UTC No. 16250514
>>16248452
>There were 60 million bison in North America before Europeans got here and as far as I know there weren't any climate issues from them.
You mean when it was called the great american desert known for regular dust storms and mosquito filled wallows?
🗑️ Anonymous at Mon, 24 Jun 2024 09:23:19 UTC No. 16250553
>>16250514
Fucking what? All the fertility in the great pains was built during that period.
Anonymous at Mon, 24 Jun 2024 09:51:42 UTC No. 16250584
>>16250553
>being a barren drought land due to previous generations of herd animal overpopulation is just "building up fertility" until the new socialist deal comes along
🗑️ Anonymous at Mon, 24 Jun 2024 10:03:25 UTC No. 16250593
>>16250584
It was neither barren nor in a state of drought. It was called a desert because it didn't have trees or lakes and settlers didn't want to live there. It didn't cause climate change either or increased co2 to my knowledge. Wtf are you smoking.
Anonymous at Mon, 24 Jun 2024 10:21:35 UTC No. 16250618
>>16250593
The climate changing into a dust filled plume every time the wind blows is enough for me.
Anonymous at Mon, 24 Jun 2024 11:42:49 UTC No. 16250693
>>16242622
Why didn’t the jannie like this pic?
Anonymous at Mon, 24 Jun 2024 11:44:22 UTC No. 16250694
>>16248207
Left looks more productive than right. Left clearly better. Environmentalists are demonstrably anti human by their preference of a barren desert over pastureland.
Anonymous at Mon, 24 Jun 2024 11:46:08 UTC No. 16250696
>>16248950
I expect their following something like Elaine Ingham or mob grazing. Good stuff because it makes money while pleasing hippies.
Anonymous at Mon, 24 Jun 2024 20:07:01 UTC No. 16251439
>>16250696
well, I expected my OP to answer my question too
>>16247043
but here we are
Anonymous at Tue, 25 Jun 2024 04:07:25 UTC No. 16252130
>>16250693
the communist butthurt brigade got upset at it and their discord reported you
Anonymous at Tue, 25 Jun 2024 04:55:47 UTC No. 16252179
>>16242528
Geologist here, let me explain some things. Back in the early 2000s a paper was published stating that cows produce more methane than pigs or chickens. This was picked up by certain animal rights groups as "eating meat endangers the climate" because methane is actually a greater greenhouse gas than CO2.
The problem with their argument is that it's a natural part of the carbon cycle. Cows do not get carbon from space, they get it from the plants they eat, they give off methane when they burp or fart, methane breaks down into CO2 in the atmosphere and is recycled again in plants which are again eaten by cows. They're animal rights groups however, and untrustworthy in how they presented the data.
The problem comes when we disrupt this cycle. You can say that there's problems with factory farms and there are, but free range grazing cattle is not a significant contributor to climate change. Cows are only a problem when you add fertilizers to the soil, fail to properly dispose of waste and transport feed and meat products using petroleum. Cows in and of themselves are carbon neutral.
There IS however an additional problem in that, because we've unbalanced the natural carbon cycle any addition of methane is a problem even from something like cow farts, not because cows are intrinsically a problem but because we've fucked the atmosphere so any additional methane is going to be bad. So, the animal rights groups are right, in a sort of explanatory way.
Anonymous at Tue, 25 Jun 2024 05:05:26 UTC No. 16252183
>>16252179
>we've fucked the atmosphere
no we haven't, adding CO2 to the atmosphere only enhances it. CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas, if it were Mars would have a massive measurable greenhouse effect, but Mars has no measurable greenhouse effect whatsoever.
stick to the rocks business, you have no training in atmospheric physics.
Anonymous at Tue, 25 Jun 2024 07:35:37 UTC No. 16252323
>>16252179
>not because cows are intrinsically a problem but because we've fucked the atmosphere so any additional methane is going to be bad.
>additional methane
But you just spent a paragraph explaining how it is not additional methane and it is just methane that would have been released into the atmosphere anyway if you let the plants compost and get eaten by bugs instead of processing them through cow stomachs.
Anonymous at Tue, 25 Jun 2024 07:50:07 UTC No. 16252337
>>16252183
>no we haven't, adding CO2 to the atmosphere only enhances it. CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas
Stop. I don't know who's paying you to play ignorant and stupid, but you're doing it too well.
Anonymous at Tue, 25 Jun 2024 07:53:23 UTC No. 16252343
>>16252179
you're forgetting the deforestation problem too. Converting forested areas into pastures and grassland is a huge problem.
Anonymous at Tue, 25 Jun 2024 08:02:30 UTC No. 16252350
>>16252179
>>16252323
Plant matter decomposition/insects mostly releases CO2, and cows release methane, which is about 25x more potent a greenhouse gas, even if shorter-lived, and because the atmosphere is already so out-of-whack, we really do not want any more CH4 to complicate things.
TLDR: cows convert plant carbon into methane, significantly increasing the immediate greenhouse effect compared to the CO2 produced from natural decomposition.
Anonymous at Tue, 25 Jun 2024 08:26:09 UTC No. 16252374
>>16252350
The carbon they sequester in their bones and in the leather and tools we make from their skin and sinew that lasts for decades makes up for the potency of the methane which can also be captured and used for fuel if it were really a major concern.
Anonymous at Tue, 25 Jun 2024 09:23:13 UTC No. 16252412
>>16252350
>TLDR: cows convert plant carbon into methane, significantly increasing the immediate greenhouse effect compared to the CO2 produced from natural decomposition.
Retard take
>Similar bacteria also exist in the environment and produce methane in wetlands, rice fields and landfills. The actual amount of methane released from a single blade of grass wouldn't change if it was just left to decompose, or if it was eaten by a cow and then digested by the bacteria in their gut.
Anonymous at Tue, 25 Jun 2024 09:35:30 UTC No. 16252427
>>16252374
>makes up for the potency of the methane
sauce, please
Anonymous at Tue, 25 Jun 2024 09:37:08 UTC No. 16252428
>>16252412
>>Similar bacteria also exist in the environment and produce methane in wetlands, rice fields and landfills.
sure, but that is nature in action on its own. We decide to raise cattle and convert forest areas into pastures.
>The actual amount of methane released from a single blade of grass wouldn't change if it was just left to decompose
As said above, it releases mostly CO2.
Anonymous at Tue, 25 Jun 2024 09:50:44 UTC No. 16252434
>>16252374
>which can also be captured and used for fuel
but it's not.
I too wish that things were different, but they aren't.
Anonymous at Tue, 25 Jun 2024 10:25:21 UTC No. 16252471
>>16252427
If its 25x more potent, you would need a 1/25th or 4% carbon sequestration to make up the difference and since up to 40% of the weight of a cow is skin and bones that take more than 25x longer to decay than meat plus the 20% skin that is turned into leather and often preserved for even longer.
>>16252434
We do capture some environmental methane, its not an urgent issue and we don't need to capture more because we already try to limit fuel sales as it is so as not to depress the costs.
Anonymous at Tue, 25 Jun 2024 10:42:59 UTC No. 16252497
>>16252471
>its not an urgent issue
I never said it was.
Cattle increases the methane amount released into the atmosphere. No such cattle, no such increase.
That's it, that's all that was said.
Anonymous at Tue, 25 Jun 2024 10:47:51 UTC No. 16252505
>>16252497
>Cattle increases the methane amount released into the atmosphere.
But it decreases the overall amount of carbon in the atmosphere by sequestration, no such cattle, no such sequestration.
Anonymous at Tue, 25 Jun 2024 11:07:44 UTC No. 16252532
>>16252428
This is a super retarded take.
Domestic cattle herds have essentially replaced the wild ruminants herds that used to dominate grassland ecosystems. Wild bison and elk and buffalo and deer and gazelles also produce methane. The environment doesn't care if methane is coming from domestic or wild ruminants.
There is virtually no correlation to global domestic cattle numbers and atmospheric methane.
Anonymous at Tue, 25 Jun 2024 11:08:46 UTC No. 16252534
Anonymous at Tue, 25 Jun 2024 13:16:03 UTC No. 16252679
>>16252532
>There is virtually no correlation to global domestic cattle numbers and atmospheric methane.
Why would you assume cows to be the only source of methane on Earth?
Anonymous at Wed, 26 Jun 2024 04:00:18 UTC No. 16254196
total number of cows in europe: 70 million
>genocidal globohomo pseudo intellectual climate shills: OMG THIS IS DESTROYING THE ENVIRONMENT, KILL THEM ALL IMMEDIATELY
total number of cows in america: 80 million
>genocidal globohomo pseudo intellectual climate shills: OMG THIS IS DESTROYING THE ENVIRONMENT, KILL THEM ALL IMMEDIATELY
total number of cows in india: 350 million
>genocidal globohomo pseudo intellectual climate shills: cows? what cows
total number of cows in africa: 400 million
>genocidal globohomo pseudo intellectual climate shills: dey dindu nuffin!
Anonymous at Wed, 26 Jun 2024 05:24:14 UTC No. 16254278
>>16252679
>Anon: Wild bison and elk and buffalo and deer and gazelles also produce methane.
>You: Duhhhhh derp why you say cows only methane source?
Anonymous at Wed, 26 Jun 2024 05:58:23 UTC No. 16254298
>>16252532
Like, did you even read my original post? There is nothing intrinsically wrong with cow farts. The problem is the methods we use to produce cattle feed for factory farms, the fertilizers, the shipment of meat and the stockpiling of waste. Your example of wild ruminants is no different from free range cattle. The problem is most of our meat is no longer free range cattle. Factory farms, a low but significant contributor to climate change, now accounts for 99% of our meat production. So I have no idea why you're using wild ruminants as a defense.
Anonymous at Wed, 26 Jun 2024 07:38:27 UTC No. 16254385
>>16252532
>Domestic cattle herds have essentially replaced the wild ruminants herds that used to dominate grassland ecosystems.
On a much grander scale far surpassing it and altering entire ecosystems.
Anonymous at Wed, 26 Jun 2024 07:39:45 UTC No. 16254386
Anonymous at Wed, 26 Jun 2024 07:40:47 UTC No. 16254387
Anonymous at Wed, 26 Jun 2024 08:32:35 UTC No. 16254441
>>16254385
>altering entire ecosystems.
So you have never heard of a wallow and think creating entire ecosystems is something new that large herd animals just recently started to do, despite all the geological evidence of ancient depressions in the landscape that clearly altered the ecosystems?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffa
Anonymous at Wed, 26 Jun 2024 11:26:49 UTC No. 16254577
>>16254386
what is the low down on palm oil? Is it as bad as the ONIONS?
Anonymous at Wed, 26 Jun 2024 11:36:22 UTC No. 16254586
>>16254386
>tropical deforestation
Not my problem
Anonymous at Wed, 26 Jun 2024 11:38:14 UTC No. 16254589
>>16254577
Rapeseed/canola is one of the least bad. Basedbean is one of the worst. Too much o6 to o3.
Anonymous at Wed, 26 Jun 2024 11:39:57 UTC No. 16254591
>>16254298
>Factory farms, a low but significant contributor to climate change, now accounts for 99% of our meat production
That's because chicken and pork are almost exclusively factory farmed.
Not so with cattle. There are no factory farms of cattle in my country. Sort your own house out first.
Anonymous at Wed, 26 Jun 2024 12:03:01 UTC No. 16254614
>>16242622
The climate cultists still believe in that nonsense. They should prove their convictions by killing themselves and therefore becoming truly carbon neutral for good.
Anonymous at Wed, 26 Jun 2024 12:04:03 UTC No. 16254617
>>16254586
The goyslop is strong in this one.
Anonymous at Wed, 26 Jun 2024 12:07:56 UTC No. 16254620
>>16254386
Wrong, the biggest losses are due retarded practices in shitholes, and wind farms in the cuckistans.
Anonymous at Wed, 26 Jun 2024 12:09:23 UTC No. 16254621
>>16254441
>Muh billion buffalo!
Never happened. Post evidence that the population of any large ruminants ever approached that number. I'd even take 100 million, which is how many cattle are in the US now.
Anonymous at Wed, 26 Jun 2024 12:12:01 UTC No. 16254625
>>16254278
So you're just a retard. Got it.
Anonymous at Wed, 26 Jun 2024 12:16:01 UTC No. 16254628
>>16254621
I never said anything about a billion and It doesn't matter if it took 1 billion or 100 million, they clearly, measurable altered the landscape and ecosystem with their wallowing habits.
Anonymous at Wed, 26 Jun 2024 12:28:47 UTC No. 16254641
>>16254620
>Wrong
let me take if from someone on 4chan
kek
Anonymous at Wed, 26 Jun 2024 12:32:53 UTC No. 16254644
>>16242528
OP, I'm still waiting:
>>16245242
>>16247043
Anonymous at Wed, 26 Jun 2024 12:43:55 UTC No. 16254659
>>16254644
It's a spambot you retard and I suspect you are too.
Anonymous at Wed, 26 Jun 2024 12:52:17 UTC No. 16254673
>>16254617
Why should I care about the ways equatorial morons are destroying their lands? I don't eat foods imported from outside Europe.
Anonymous at Wed, 26 Jun 2024 14:23:27 UTC No. 16254786
>>16254628
Uh huh. Now show that there were 100 million large ruminants in the area that is now the US at any point before we started industrially farming cattle.
>they clearly, measurable altered the landscape and ecosystem with their wallowing habits.
So, equally clearly, having more large ruminants will cause more measurable alterations to our ecosystems. And, even more equally clearly, if those large ruminants could not have achieved that population naturally then these are not natural alterations to our ecosystems.
Anonymous at Wed, 26 Jun 2024 19:06:15 UTC No. 16255167
>>16254659
>It's a spambot
prove it, I make 1 post troll threads on /pol/ for fun too
Anonymous at Wed, 26 Jun 2024 23:53:32 UTC No. 16255665
>>16252179
>we've fucked the atmosphere
I simply do not care. Protect property rights and everything else falls into place.
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Jun 2024 00:20:03 UTC No. 16255688
>>16255665
So who has rights to the sky? Can I sue people for dumping chemicals into it?
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Jun 2024 00:26:28 UTC No. 16255695
>>16254591
Where from? Here in the US it's 97% of beef cattle.
https://www.nrdc.org/resources/feed
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Jun 2024 03:41:57 UTC No. 16255991
>>16255695
You're conflating grain-finishing cattle with factory farming. If a cow lives it's entire life on pasture except for the last few weeks before slaughter, that doesn't make it "factory farmed".
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Jun 2024 05:21:11 UTC No. 16256072
>>16255688
>So who has rights to the sky?
anon, the thread topic is:
>cattle
>their effects on carbon emissions
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Jun 2024 05:22:15 UTC No. 16256075
>>16255665
>Protect property rights
this way. please:
>>>/pol/
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Jun 2024 06:30:53 UTC No. 16256203
>>16254786
>So, equally clearly, having more large ruminants will cause more measurable alterations to our ecosystems. And, even more equally clearly, if those large ruminants could not have achieved that population naturally then these are not natural alterations to our ecosystems.
Your naturalism fallacy to attack a strawman aside, the causing more measurable alterations isn't true since we keep them more densely populated, manage them from birth to distribution in fenced in smaller hillier areas with clear access to lagoons and lakes where they can't stampede and stomp around obliterating the trees as easily while constantly cleaning up after them so they aren't pockmarking the entire landscape and with festering watering holes everywhere that make a more widespread ecological impact and invite more pest species to shallow waters without trees around where fish and birds can't as easily interrupt their reproduction.
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Jun 2024 06:31:54 UTC No. 16256205
>>16256072
Which come in the form of methane gas and end up in the sky wandering onto other people's property space.
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Jun 2024 06:56:18 UTC No. 16256233
>>16256205
>people's property
philosophy is off-topic in /sci/
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Jun 2024 07:10:07 UTC No. 16256250
>>16256233
No. science is a philosophy, that type of discussion just goes above your pay grade and its not even a philosophy discussion, property rights involve a lot a of science to survey, measure, diagram, and catalogue and the rights to the sky are public and managed by government agencies with substantial scientific departments who collectively decide how the air space is used through the FAA and what frequencies and magnitude of energy can be emitted in the sky through the FCC and what kind of pollutants can be released into the air with the Clean Air Act and the EPA.
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Jun 2024 07:53:23 UTC No. 16256284
>>16256233
Even natural philosophy?
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Jun 2024 08:03:45 UTC No. 16256293
>>16256284
The belief or not in "property rights" is not "natural philosophy": it's more akin to personal deification, i.e. the right of an individual to exert its "free-will" (even more philosophy, lol) upon nature, a theological concept, fundamentally.
We are completely off-topic now, and this is my last reply on the matter.
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Jun 2024 08:20:14 UTC No. 16256302
>>16256293
It has nothing to do with free will or nature, its inventing rules of social order that help prevent people from engaging in arguments that can't be resolved without violence, you superstitious retard.