serenityseeker

Montessori, for example, has a more free-flowing structure to the child's day, where they can do an activity when they feel like it, stop when they feel like it. The idea is that then they're always in the right mental state (i.e. engagement) for the task they're doing then.

If the only reason the child is painting, for example, is "because it's 2 o'clock", then the child likely doesn't feel like doing that then.

this person wins NoYank

Who or what is harmed by a piece of lifeless metal on a piece of lifeless rock?

You said you're against sophistry, then you said Mars=Yellowstone

I think this is the Gaia quote they're talking about –

The very concept of pollution is anthropocentric and it may even be irrelevant in the Gaian context. Many so-called pollutants are naturally present and it becomes exceedingly difficult to know at what level the appellation 'pollutant' may be justified. Carbon monoxide, for example, which is poisonous to us and to most large mammals, is a product of incomplete combustion, a toxic agent from exhaust gases of cars, coke or coal-burning stoves, and cigarettes; a pollutant put into otherwise clean fresh air by man, you might think. However, if the air is analysed we find that carbon monoxide gas is to be found everywhere. It comes from the oxidation of methane gas in the atmosphere itself and as much as 1,000 million tons of it are so produced each year. It is thus an indirect but natural vegetable product and is also found in the swim-bladders of many sea creatures. The syphonophores, for example, are loaded with this gas in concentrations which would speedily kill us off if present in our own atmosphere at similar levels.

Almost every pollutant, whether it be in the form of sulphur dioxide, dimethyl mercury, the halocarbons, mutagenic and carcinogenic substances, or radioactive material, has to some extent, large or small, a natural background. It may even be produced so abundantly in nature as to be poisonous or lethal from the start. To live in caves of uranium-bearing rock would be unhealthy for any living creature, but such caves are rare enough to present no real threat to the survival of a species. It seems that as a species we can already with stand the normal range of exposure to the numerous hazards of our environment. If for any reason one or more of these hazards should increase, both individual and species adaptation will set in.

What is your definition of pollution tho? How can there be pollution on a lifeless rocky planet?

I haven't read this particular one, but yeah Oxfam's methodology has been garbage any time I've looked

Death to Oxfam

farting

I hope you have a great time

Have you been to China Yogthos? How did you like it?

What's the connection between the top text and bottom text?

Just taking two completely unrelated points and throwing them together.

freezey or seizey?