I think you're missing the compost part. Wood will break down in a compost, yet you can build houses from it. Indoor furniture made from wood will happily serve you for decades. Same with this biodegradable plastic: It'll have a shelf life of decades or even centuries. When shredded and composted it will break down. This material is likely not a good candidate for the wheel housing on your car, but there's no reason not to use it, for example, for a car's interior.
After Camus and Sartre, I threw in some random Cicero (first half) and then something completely random (second) because I should hate to be predictable.
That stance is fair enough. Though I'd like to point out that language can shape perception. And using terms like "trans rights" suggests that trans people are sufficiently different from "normal" humans that they require special rights. But, in my humble opinion, it would be so easy to formulate human/basic rights in a way that no subset specific rights are required, that the entire notion of X rights seems alien to me. Let's assume we have four tiers of laws (true for some nations): constitutional law, common law, policy, and judicial precedence. Imagine the following subset of constitutional law:
-
Constitutional law applies to all humans residing in the jurisdiction of the nation.
-
Nobody has a right for unhurt feelings.
-
Nobody shall perform an act solely for the purpose of hurting someone else's feelings.
-
Everybody has a right for individual bodily autonomy.
There's no mention of race, religion, gender, ... Yet, I'd argue that, for example, trans people are fully covered and protected by the wording. Required exceptions, for example limited accountability for minors, can easily be put into common law. If it becomes evident that some minority is factually disadvantaged, that could be addressed in policy without any need to extend the law because that is neutral and all-encompassing.
I feel like "we" (politicians/societies) are talking way too much about special laws for trans people, women, ... when we should fix the root causes of overly specific laws/constitutions.
TL;DR: humans are humans, and imho human law should be for all humans and avoid special treatment of any subset, but be worded in a way that any special need is met as best as possible.
The only thing that bothers me about terms like "trans rights", "women rights", ... is that there should be no need to prefix "rights" with anything but "human". And human rights should apply to all humans indiscriminately, obviating the need to label any subset of human rights that shouldn't exist. In my book, the slice of bread should read:
Humans have human rights. Trans people are humans.
And in a better world every bit of that should be so obvious that it wouldn't need mentioning at all.
Friendship improves happiness and abates misery, by the doubling of our joy and the dividing of our grief. Now, insert your recreation rod into my receptacle.
This comment section is a prison. I'm not stuck here with you, though. You're stuck with me!
Overall I'm pretty happy with myself. The only thing I'd improve is my weak jawline. But, you'll be the judge:
Alter, das regt mich so auf! 42 ist nicht die Antwort auf alle Fragen! 42 ist die Antwort auf die Frage aller Fragen. Warum kriegt das keiner auf die Kette?
I saw so many of those on my last visit to croatia. Here's a pic I took:
Our host told us about the psychedelic effect they can have. I wasn't sure if he was bullshitting us ... guess he was not :)
Haben wir noch Apostrophs? Keinem mehr? Gar keinem? Zwei noch?
Jetz' gibt's Maul!
Wat? Kaum drei Haare auf'm Sack und schon ein' auf dicke Hose machen hier, wie?
Hätten sie lieber die Spanische Inquisition?
It looks like it's "garbage" quality.
To be fair, that's also true when running natively under Windows.
