To those of you downvoting the above post, thank you. I'm always happy to have my perceptions improved, and I take the downvotes to indicate that you have forthcoming a carefully citationed rebuttal, countering and demonstrating the falseness of the above post and therefore of it being worthy of downvoting.
While at one time, the bank's proprietors may have been clever, I suspect that these days they are much more accustomed to getting what they want by throwing their weight around.
"Emergency relief is necessary to avoid the risk of inflicting a needless and massive privacy violation upon Goldman Sachs' clients, and to avoid the risk of unnecessary reputational damage to Goldman Sachs," the bank said.
"By contrast, Google faces little more than the minor inconvenience of intercepting a single email - an email that was indisputably sent in error," it added.
"Emergency relief is necessary"
"We are a big powerful bank, we are going to ask you nicely to do us a favor. Our employees fucked up. Please help us hide the fact that our employees fucked up, so we don't get a reputation for having employees that fuck up." the bank said.
"What we are asking them to do is technically speaking very simple. Whether or not it would open them up to many more such requests, we don't really care(unless one of our employees fucks up again,) fuck you we're goldman sachs." it added.
And why do you think that is? Maybe because it is intrinsically a bad thing to do. For civilization as we know it at least.
Better outcomes for children from 2 parent households have been established through scientific investigation.[1]
Why do you think a virgin bride is such a prized thing throughout cultures and ages?
Greater numbers of premarital sexual partners are associated with higher rates of divorce.[2]
It is kind of crazy how in a certain segment of the population's rush to rectify past wrongs they overlook the fact that maybe some things were as they were for sound reasons. You can even surmise that if there is any genetic component to the typical monogamous relationships of human societies then men have a genetically encoded aversion to sluts when seeking a mother for their children.
The normalization of sluttiness is always going to be a losing battle if our civilization is to survive and thrive.
What exactly is the improvement feminists think they are after by trying to normalize sluttiness?
So we've seen, on average two parent households produce "better" children, better children produce better societies, and a higher sexual partner count for a woman prior to marriage produces a higher incidence of divorce.
Anyone care to articulate any reasons why promoting sluttiness is beneficial for the future of humanity?
[1]
"Children from two-parent families are better off emotionally, socially and economically"
Who are the people negotiating and agreeing to these 'agreements'(this, ACTA, etc) and what could their justification for keeping them secret possibly be?
Marine life has dealt with particles in the water for a billion years.
Precisely, and that actually potentially works against the organisms' defenses. It's like the Trojan Horse, it looks okay on the outside. The particles being dealt with for a billion years I imagine have varied little in their molecular construction and bio-reactivity.
Your idea is that we can introduce tons of new plastic particles into the environment having all the disruptive properties plastics have been shown to have, but it's okay because there are already 'particles' in the environment.
Elsewhere you question what studies have been conducted to quantify damage done by these particles.
As you may know, the earth is an immensely complex system. Sometimes it is relatively easy to draw a causal line from A to B. Other times the effects of something are no doubt there, but the interworkings of so many factors make it hard to precisely quantify the effects of any one factor.(see Honeybees and Colony Collapse Disorder[1])
So your idea that we should go ahead and saturate the environment with this substance that has been shown in other realms and at other scales to be detrimental, and then if someone happens to take an interest in precisely quantifying damage that it is doing, then we can do something about it, seems wrongheaded.
Maybe you're just playing the reflexive contrarian like worklogin, "shouldn't we avoid laws?" This is precisely what laws are for, to protect the common good! And it isn't a stretch to infer damage being done based on what we know about plastic.
People wonder what happened to great nations of the past. When you have men(you'll understand my assumption,) whining about cosmetic products instead of plotting courses to the moon, there's your answer.
Oh but the two aren't mutually exclusive you say? I beg to differ.
I hope this is satire. "It might royally fuck up the environment, but I've been so manipulated by marketing, that if I don't rub microscopic plastic on my body, I just feel so... unclean... guys, guys? Where are you going?"
The 'sterilized' sand bit at the end was a nice touch too, alluding to the dominant scorched earth policy we have in regards to shaping the environment in ways we (mistakenly, deludedly) think will be most conducive to our well-being.
Might be a good idea as well to flesh out the issue in a blog post in a comprehensible and accessible way. Explaining the importance of the right to organize, why civil disobedience is important, et cetera.
Then spread it around the social news sites and get other bloggers to blog about it.
I await the opportunity to learn something new.