Vegetable stir-fry, curry or similar should be easily do-able. There’s plenty of fresh veg that will keep long enough out of a fridge or canned asian veg is decent. Tomato or pesto pasta. Stew made with canned beef isn’t bad. Omlette.

Do you have a cool bag/box? Grab a bag of ice and you have a fridge for a few days. Even a plastic box would do the trick.

Paper chains around the room!

Alien in 1979…

But then who are the criminals and ‘bad’ people if not those that have rejected the contract? Life is never all or nothing, so there will be times when someone will abide by the contract, for whatever reason, and times when they wont. This discussion centres on the times that they don’t and assumes that is the option taken the majority of the time.

True, a society does demand sacrifice of free will, however it can be argued that there can never be 100% free will even if you’re a hermit in a cave 100s of miles from another human. E.g. “I want to stay in my cave all day today, but I can’t because I’ve run out of food.” Hunger removes the free will for that period of time.

No, I don’t believe so. Some might, but I think many do it purely for the selfish reason of avoiding guilt etc. Just because you and I and many others see it as being good for everyone, I don’t beleive that most people think the same! They may be able to describe the act of doing something for the benefit of all, just as we are discussing, and understand it, but otherwise only want whatever they want regardless of the impact on others. Humans are selfish, all of us are, it’s an evolutionary tool for survival used by all life and helps ensure the survival of the species. Some of us regularly think beyond that though, but I reckon you’d be surprised how few do with any regulatory, it can become quite tiring to constantly assess situations afresh, so instinct kicks in and so people just do what they want in that moment that takes the least effort.

Ah but is that not peer pressure? You and others don’t want your cars damaged etc and therefore critisise people who leave carts around selfishly. This then creates a scenario where people may feel guilty or wish to avoid said critisism and put the cart away as a result.

I agree that social contracts exist, but only between those who accept them and are willing to make an effort for everyone and anyone. Those that do not return the cart are in effect rejecting that contract.

I’d argue that doing something because of peer pressure is different to being taught or learning to be considerate, so what looks like considerate behaviour from the outside, may just be e.g. avoidance of guilt/judgement. It doesn’t necessarily equate to being civilized.

But the ‘test’ is peer pressure, no? Which exists permanently in real life so there will always be a portion of people only returning the cart because of that.

Well the discussion started off ok before ending in a rabies infested rant against humanity! Talk about going off the rails!

Anyhow, many people return the trolley so they don’t look bad/feel guilty. That doesn’t necessarily make them ‘good’ or ‘civilised’ and therefore fit into the ‘being forced’ category through peer pressure. Does that make them ‘animals’ and ‘savages’ too?

I understand clearly that you think domestic cats are a natural part of the ecosystem, which they are not. Just because they were introduced a long time ago that doesn’t make them natural predators, and just becsuse their impact on native wildlife started a long time ago, that only makes it all the more damaging.

Yes we have wildcats, but like any animal, they have a natural niche. Domestic cats are simply everywhere and their populations are sustained by humans far far above any possible natural population numbers.

Therefore it is completely relevant to keep domestic cats indoors. I don’t know about the US approach you’re referring to, but I expect that domestic cats can have a similar impact there as anywhere.

There is simply nothing natural about domestic cats in natural ecosystems. I presented four peices of evidence and you still don’t see it!

The say the UK lacks predators, you clearly seem to have read one thing about it (I’m guessing about wolves, and therefore large predators, which have a completely different ecological niche to small cats, wild or domestic) and extrapolate that to equate this idea of yours!

You’ve simply got it wrong.

Absolute BS!

Domestic cats are well known predators of rodents, birds and bats!

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/cats-kill-a-staggering-number-of-species-across-the-world/

https://www.felineresearch.org/post/issue-brief-wildlife-impacts-of-outdoor-cats

https://www.birdspot.co.uk/garden-birds-and-cats/cats-and-the-decline-of-garden-birds

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/aug/14/cats-kill-birds-wildlife-keep-indoors

Thanks Bob.

Living standards have improved for many, but at the expense of others through exploitation. Like you say, an age old story. We’re just incredibly lucky to catch a period in the history of mankind where the improvements have benefitted more than just the rich/elite.

Success in business (profit) requires exploitation, which requires few or very select morals to reach the very top. Those people you describe sound a perfect fit!

Not a big user of condiments so the only one I’ve come up with, and therefore technically a favourite - egg yolk and ketchup. I make it when I have a fried egg so, whatever cooked breakfast combo I’ve also made with it.

I certainly agree that a fact simply is, noting your lack of belief, however communication is only possible through description so I suspect some somantics here. My point was that within an arguement, opinions can be extrapolated from known facts to suggest unkown/unproven facts, if only so to the individuals involved. Essentially this is that basis of any argument - to exchange ideas/possibilities etc to reach the ultimate goal of determining what is a fact.

Though, as you say, many discussions and arguments, especially in a casual scenario, are taken as exercises in ‘winning’ rather than with the aforementioned aim. I agree this is frustrating and understand your stance.

Re respect. If you respect a person (your approach being much the same as my own), does that not preculde that you respect what they say?, at least in most instances, even if they are mistaken or incorrect? Though I think there may be two points here, one re emotional beliefs & one re fact-based beliefs. The latter being more what I’ve been refering to. Emotional beliefs are much closer to pure opinion than facts.

I don’t think in terms of respect about something like this as this leans towards some kind of snobbery or predudice. Either I agree or don’t. Regardless of any perceived level of knowledge or intelligence behind an argument, I’ll respond as a point of advancing shared knowledge rather than trying to ‘win’.

Unfortunately there are many subjects where all the facts aren’t known, therefore opinions must be discussed to advance the understanding and ultimately help to establish future facts. Also, one person’s believed facts may be a misunderstanding, for example, hence why discussions and arguments may happen.

As such, there is (nearly) always a point to it!

I see your threes and raise you fourteens! Snapped this just yesterday:)

Alas, I’ll never be able to afford Airwolf!