Just think of all that energy he can burn from weering renewable clothes, like leather shoes, rather than buying plastic ones that damage the environment.
Now remind us, how many litres of oil make 1kg of plastic?
Except, things change and then he can't. In many cases a group of people already know that the changes are afoot and change before they are forced to, simply because it's the *right thing* to do.
I realise '*right thing* simply isn't on the radar of a selfish minority and they will inevitably spoil it for the majority.
I saw something on Youtube re some folk who were living in their vans (in the USA in this case) because they had lost their jobs and so homes. The guy in the video realised that parking up in say a shopping Mal car park overnight might not be 'Allowed' but the small group that were doing it kept themselves to themselves, didn't stay there all the time and cleared up any litter, even though they themselves hadn't made it. They also made a point of shopping in the store whose carpark they were staying in, even though it wasn't the best / cheapest, because it was the right thing to do.
Then more people started turning up, *didn't* clear up or keep quiet or go somewhere else during the day so they *all* got told to leave and don't come back.
Bill would be the one complaining that he had the money to keep slaves or smoke over people in the pub because it was 'his right', without considering his active inflicting smoke on non smokers was less 'fair' than the non-smokers having the right to not have to suffer such.
Just because something is legal or 'legitimate' now doesn't mean it's will continue (to be legal) and therefore question it's legality or morality ever.
Cheers, T i m
Resorts to ad hominem attack because he has no argument. Typical.
Bill
You weren't polite because your suggestion was intrinsically rude: you said he should change his lifestyle to suit your mindset. The only reasonable response to stuff like that is "Bugger off!"
Bill
That's more-or-less correct. That's how the world works. Basically, if it's legal you're allowed to do it. Them that tries to tell you that you can't are just poking their nose in where it isn't wanted, so they can bugger off.
Bill
Them with crystal balls, or is it just that they build up their own fantasy then think they have to right to make everybody else comply with it? They can bugger off.
Forced to? Left wing fascists then.
Sensible majority
and they will inevitably spoil it for the majority.
Minority of Marxist pseudo-environmentalists
We all keep slaves. Where do you buy your clothes and your electronic toys? And in the UK there's plenty on or below the minimum wage, and that's almost slavery.
That's illegal.
No but when it's legal we are allowed to do it. That's democracy, possibly an alien concept to a Marxist.
Bill
Except they won't will they, they can start to enjoy a pint in the pub without having to endure the stench of all those who want to burn leaves *indoors*, by LAW. So, it is actually the smokers who have had to bugger off, in spite of your denial.
Yup, you know how that works:
Yup, forced to smoke outside, forced not to smoke on a train, forced to wear a safety belt, forced to wear a crash helmet, forced to get 'Gas safe' people to work on their boiler and forced not to have slaves, let women have the vote and not discriminate against people ... a list of things that I'm sure spoils your fun.
Till it's changed, by law or social pressure and education.
Who have been spoiling it for the majority (and themselves) but not realised / accepted it.
A rising number of enlightened people who haven't stopped evolving. Those who don't use our Neanderthal ancestors or other animals as benchmarks for what might be considered acceptable today.
I'm sure you still do ... even if the only legal (atm) ones are the animals the flesh you like the taste of (when there are plenty of plant based alternatives).
When I do (and it's very seldom I do and I wear them out) I buy stuff that's Fairtrade etc.
Same place you do I'm guessing in most cases? Places that are improving their human rights situation, albeit slowly.
Their human rights are bad because like you they still consider such acceptable. Dog eat dog?
Yes, but except is *isn't* slavery in the way we all accept the definition is it. If we want to play your game, you would then have to accept that the specific selection of animals you will kill and eat are also enslaved ... so no problem for you with either? The difference of course is there is little choice with where much of our electronics is made but we do have the option to NOT support cruelty to animals by not buying their corpses and excretions.
*Now*, like your slavery and the keeping and killing of animals will also become so, as it already is for a selection of them and for most people of course.'Allowed to' maybe but there is no obligation for you to. You would be in the records books for buying the last batch of slaves before the deadline.
Which has nothing to do with morals and ethics that require compassion and empathy of course, words you wouldn't 'get' even if explained to you. ;-(
Is it ? <shrug>
Cheers, T i m
I know?
No, that's how your world works.
I never suggested otherwise, I was talking of constraints that you couldn't even start to comprehend. ;-(
Or trying to stand up for their rights (and often what's morally and ethically right) until the laws catch up (and they will because of the former).
Cheers, T i m
The OP invited suggestion and not doing something is a valid suggestion here.
Only to someone who doesn't have a full complement of emotions and understanding of the bigger picture.
Have you ever heard the term 'Overconsumption' and do you have a clue what it might mean?
Cheers, T i m
Just because you don't understand something (and I point it out to you), doesn't mean it's any more an 'attack' than you calling me a Marxist or whatever?
There are loads of reasons why people shouldn't do things, even if there are legal but like I said, you wouldn't understand or accept them for the reasons *you* have already stated.
Cheers, T i m
I'm pretty sure most people would add something after 'afford it' - like 'and it's the decent thing to do'. And leave out the 'irrespective of harm'. I have a feeling that Bill is deploying a bit of mischief . . . E&OE etc. ;-)
Agreed, however, I really believe some (luckily only a minority *are* sufficiently selfish (as deemed by 'most people') and so wouldn't.
It's why many laws have come about of course, to mange those who are 'antisocial' and can see so follow any other (non legal) societal limits. And many don't even follow the legal limits and end up in court / prison etc.
You would like to think.
That may well be the case, even if he doesn't realise it himself.
He obviously cares for his dogs so does care for some animals, he just hasn't worked out how illogical his dealing with animals actually is and because he's old, probably never will. ;-)
Cheers, T i m
These type of heaters are very common on the continent in pavement cafes but they remind me of an old Vauxhall car I had where the heater would roast your left foot while the right foot froze. Streuth we accepted some dire cars in days gone by
For all those replying that we should wear a coat, woolly jumper, etc. as if we haven't considered this, please assume that we have considered this and have decided that for our requirements some additional heat is a better option.
We also have central heating, which we use to keep the house at a comfortable temperature for us. We could go without heating (done that in my childhood), or turn it right down and wear outdoor clothing indoors. We prefer to be comfortable.
Telling us just to put a coat on is not helpful in the context of this question.
Cheers
Dave R
I'm will Bill on this one.
Certainly not with you!
Cheers
Dave R
OK.
Upgrade to "Oh, bugger off"."
Hopefully somebody will find time amongst all this shit to answer the original question.
Cheers
Dave R
From a random and brief Internet search:
"To ensure a level 4 protection against a liquid element, water is sprayed from all directions towards the device for 5 minutes. If the device resists, it is IPX4 certified. So we can say that it resists water jets (or splashing water)."
Given that the proposed site is fully sheltered from water by a plastic roof as far as I can tell IPX4 protection is more than adequate.
Oh, and thanks to Chris G for the pointer.
Cheers
Dave R
Ditto 'bi-folds'. One of the most stupid ideas the building industry has come up with.
That applies to all cars. The footwell outlet from the heater is going to blow hot air on the left foot, and your front passengers left foot, because of the location of the heater.
Of course you are because he supports your idea that it's always 'ok' to do what you like as long as it's legal.
Or anyone else who tries to get you to consider alternatives (and I wasn't the only one here btw).
However, our family all spend plenty of 'social time' seeing and talking to My (isolated) Mum (their granny etc) and each other over Portals.
My point is that there are often 'other' ways to do things we once did pre lockdown that could be considered 'greener' or more practical and certainly safer (infectionwise) than burning energy into the sky.
There was talk of us continuing to wear face masks, after the Coronavirus had been tamed, simply because doing so would also protect many from other viruses that were based that way. We aren't used to it over here so you could expect a backlash of those who 'insisted' they weren't going to (to the detriment of all those they may infect), whereas in may Far East countries, the wearing of face masks is very much part of their culture.
But hey, you asked for opinions and I gave you mine, you are under no obligation to go along with it! ;-)
Cheers, T i m
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.