Jiggle_Physics @ Jiggle_Physics @sh.itjust.works Posts 15Comments 334Joined 4 mo. ago
The only thing I miss about reddit are the large, academic subject specific subs, that tightly moderate their subs to make sure that as many of the posts/answers are from accredited people, or that the post seems to check out when they look the subject up. r/askhistorians for example.
I mean, the reason the US is having such a huge issue with eggs is because they basically put all their eggs in one basket. What I mean by this, is the reason bird flu affects the US much more than Canada, and Europe, is that they limit egg producing facilities to around 10k-30k hens, after that the industrial farm needs to build another, separated, facility for the hens beyond their regulated number. US industrial farms often have over 1mm in a single, massive, structure. This means that not only are they more vulnerable to getting it at all, but it facilitates rapid spreading. China, and other places, also have similar issues with bird flu, as the US, due to similar production practices.
This is likely untrue, Canada exports twice as much refined crude as it imports. Most of their domestic fuel use is drilled, and refined, in Canada, and they have been importing less as time goes on.
Exactly, mega wealthy people exist because of wealth hoarding
Nobody has a good view of insurance. Views on Elon, and his companies, are far more mixed. So it isn't impossible. Even today there are a LOT of morons who basically see him as the messiah.
The west managed a massive decline in population growth without such draconian policies, and the west was popping out 6-10 babies on the regular till very recently. Also, the reason people were starving, and struggled to find work, wasn't because the proletariat was doing something wrong, it was because the elites horribly mismanaged the country's agriculture, despite the prols, who are supposed to be the dictators, telling the elite exactly why they didn't do things that way, and that this would destroy their crops. They couldn't keep up with the pace of jobs requirements because they forced a broad move to urbanized industrialization, then poorly planned that transition, and it took over 20 years to course correct, because they refused admit they didn't know what they were doing. A broad re-planning of this only came after Mao died, which lead to the arrest of the "Gang of Four", and a following liberalization of access to information, allowance of academic freedoms, and restructuring of schemes to move workers to an industrial economy.
The left could do nothing but kill themselves in the service of making right wing people's lives better and they would still call them the violent left.
This is called the euphemism treadmill
Yeah, wearing something nice to the local pub is not, in its self, self aggrandization. Wearing the things you like, is just that, wearing things you like. Now, if you make it a point show-off that you are wearing designer brands, talk about not wanting to look poor, making remarks, like these poppy cutters, to people for having a more budget conscious wardrobe, etc. then you are self aggrandizing.
If you are simply wearing nice clothes to day-to-day stuff, and otherwise acting normally, you are just wearing things that make you happy. The people who are "cutting the tall poppies" are just doing to you, what fashion snobs would do to them. They even have similarly lame excuses "What? I am just pointing out what people could be doing to look better, which makes people treat you better, and makes you happier" vs "What? I am just pointing out that this person is being a pompous ass, which makes people think worse of them, and that they could fit in better, which will make people treat them better".
Your comment is that people can believe things are moral, that lead you to do horrible things, because relativistic morals make you susceptible to misinformation. You then say this isn't a good operating procedure because of this susceptibility, thus your morals can be twisted to justify horrible things, like killing people out of a sense of righteousness. Then you say that if your moral baseline isn't an unshakable belief, an axiom, based on empathy, you can't understand what the person believes.
The first part is true. However, how you present that last two sentences make it look like you are saying this is not good, and that having adamant morals, founded on empathy, is your understanding of a moral standing, and a better way of operating than relativistic models, which can be manipulated by bad input, and produce bad output.
Would you say this is a correct interpretation?
What makes you think these people haven't already heard every argument against their behavior, and stick to it anyway? This is generally the case. When tankies say stuff like this they are regularly argued with, their logic challenged, their "facts" challenged. If it happens on their turf they remove comments, and ban people, if it doesn't they just argue until the other person realizes they are, effectively, talking to a rock, or until the tankie tires, or hits a wall they can't make an argument to get past, and they stop. You see the same names, over and over. They are evangelicals for authoritarian communism, and campist, blind, support for anything, as long as it is in opposition to western countries. The most blatant acts of imperialism are currently being executed by russia, yet they claim these are self defense, diplomatic measures, acts of desperate necessity, anything other than admitting they are just exercising imperial hard power, and trying to annex as much of neighboring countries as they can.
I mean, a lot of places have a history, and/or are currently still doing, of drug use within their military. All sorts of amphetamines have been used in a lot of places in military operations. There is also a lot of opiate use too. Probably all sorts of things we don't know about, yet.
do you not think that people can't come to conclusions you would feel are terrible and still hold them as unshakable morals they derived from empathy? Do you think empathy is not subjective?
I think they worded this poorly. I believe their argument was more that someone can believe that morals are constructs, and relative, but you can also believe that you should try and move people to construct morals based on your own.
Oh, I am SO minding you now
Day after tomorrow? Demoted back to nobody.
They didn't need advice from 1984, they are the type of thing it was a warning for.
Yet I bet they would consider things like the residential school system NA put the natives through a form of genocide.
Who has bets on the real motive being to better target those getting hormonal treatments, for the possibility of better stopping trans therapies, and birth control? Secondary, they are going to turn it over to their friends in the industry so they can better take that monopoly
Maybe yours is