Yes this graph makes way more sense. The original graph had no base, age is arbitrary to events over time without a date of birth. So if you were born in 1751 and were 5 years old the original says 11% of all emissions happened in your lifetime. It also say if you were born in 2019 and were 5 years old that 11% of all emissions happened in your lifetime. It has static measurements across time when yearly emissions aren’t static.
That’s what I don’t get about this. The point is either to get out of paying or at least make it very difficult. At the same time the cost to Disney as a company with all the bad press and fall out from doing this would be orders of magnitude greater than simply paying the widower compensation. Who signed off on it? The idea that a lawyer can do what ever it takes to win a case while simultaneously destroying the company they work for seems dumb as shit from a purely financial point of view.
It’s more different than better, and by different I mean better
Left is in common sense units, right is in intelligence units. There is no “freedom” (to be ignorant) units though no.
Also sorry for the burn but it is a deserving burn at least.
Temperature of the body
That’s ridiculous, he’s obviously Jesus Christ.
That not helpful to the narrative that Hamas who are made up of Palestinians and supported by Palestinian people are pure and innocent
Snopes says this
What's True Tobacco enemas were a real and at one time popular medical practice thought to have been able to revive people who had drowned or were otherwise catastrophically ill. What's False However, the phrase "blow smoke up your ass" appears to have its origins more recently, in the 1960s, and there is no evidence linking it to the long-ago practice of tobacco enemas.
He’s making the fossil fuel industry look bad
A criminal is basically someone who wronged or oppressed someone else. I wouldn’t consider them vulnerable. Still a shitty way to treat prisoners
Get peasants to ask the fed? When has the fed ever given a shit about what peasants say
Yes but Rittenhouse couldn’t have shot someone unless he felt in fear for his life. This isn’t like a cop putting 20 bullets in someone cause he thought his comb was a gun. He literally had a gun pointed at him. If this didn’t happen he would be a murderer. It did happen and the idiot who did this should share the blame of a stupid situation. It’s like people can’t comprehend there are shades of grey.
He obviously went there looking for trouble. What Rittenhouse did in response to other people’s unlawful actions was deemed lawful by a court. There’s not much more to it besides the cases hyper politicisation. For some reason (riots) it became left vs right. If you remove the politics, it’s just some idiot who knowingly went into a dangerous situation - then some other idiots attacked him, one even had a gun pointed at him, this is worse than Rittenhouse simply carrying a gun. It seemed like a dumb case for the left to get behind - nearly nothing about Rittenhouse’s attackers were discussed in the media. It was solely focused on Rittenhouse and his stupidity. Not what whether or not his attackers also did something wrong. Which they did according to a court.
When you shit your pants and then you get a whiff
Not the exact wording but the general premise behind it is a fair counter point in any disagreement. When someone is attempting to gain a higher moral authority, bringing up any hypocrisy is a reasonable thing to do. If pointing out hypocrisy is then dismissed, it is reasonable to assume the other person is not arguing in good faith and therefore should no be taken seriously.