Retra

7 ms·

1.
by Retra 7y ago
You seem to be satisfied to do the same. I at least explained what the problem was with the argument. "I don't think so" is not any kind of improvement there.
2.
by Retra 7y ago
Extinction does not drive evolution, reproduction does, and if a species' food goes extinct, they reproduce less, not more. Secondly, these animals aren't abandoning their niches, they're losing them due to human activities.
3.
by Retra 7y ago
The problem with urban insurgencies is the people who don't carry firearms, not the ones that do. If you can identify the combatants, it is much easier to kill them.
4.
by Retra 7y ago
That's a self-defeating argument. Your objection to the concept of ownership would apply to just about every concept, including your own morality, which leaves your thoughts about what _should_ be a little out of place. That is, unless
5.
by Retra 7y ago
I have the opposite problem: I don't know what anxiety is. Supposedly it's an emotion people have (and it's certainly possible I feel it too,) but I have no way to identify my feelings as anxiety because nobody has ever expre
6.
by Retra 7y ago
The fact that I like cake is not a conscious decision. My decision is whether I will eat it or not. You don't actually have to be with the people you're attracted to. (We all get old and ugly eventually anyway.)
7.
by Retra 7y ago
What understanding? If you can't do anything with it, what do you understand?
8.
by Retra 7y ago
You called it a key. I said it is not unless it has a useful purpose.
9.
by Retra 7y ago
So you're fine with a key that doesn't open anything? How will you know it is a key at all then? >We try to understand countless things without have a use case in mind at the time of study. You're making a pretty clear ref
10.
by Retra 7y ago
You are probably going to spend more energy than that just lugging around solar panels.
11.
by Retra 7y ago
Under any practical consideration, free will is nothing more than an emotion; it offers you no capabilities, only a propensity to respond to things in a certain way. Without a useful definition of free will that offers something different t
12.
by Retra 7y ago
Lots of people will question this stuff, but they definitely won't bring up their objections. People are incentivized to collect their paychecks and do what they're told, not to point out the absurd thinking of the managers and ex
13.
by Retra 7y ago
So you're not really protesting unless you light yourself on fire? You understand that if everybody who protested the "big stuff" did so by doing extremely risky things, you're going to end up with nobody left with the w
14.
by Retra 7y ago
Sure, if you assume the only purpose of fingers is for counting.
15.
by Retra 7y ago
They're considered separate fields because they focus on different problems which are amenable to different techniques, leaving their expert practitioners with very different knowledge bases. You're right that it is a cultural dis
16.
by Retra 7y ago
I don't think you've honestly tried to understand what I'm saying, and I don't think your attitude reflects the maturity I expect of someone seriously attempting to discuss ethics.
17.
by Retra 7y ago
I am not saying that. I'm saying that considering the government to act only violently is a gross mischaracterization of reality such that even if you define things such that it is technically true, it is not a useful position to take.
18.
by Retra 7y ago
I don't understand these distinctions. North Korea doesn't control its population with only boots on the ground, it controls it by controlling the border (with ships), the political arena (with nukes), and by controlling infrastru
19.
by Retra 7y ago
There is no position from the perspective of beings that don't exist, let alone a neutral one. It's always the beings that exist that make decisions, and it's always their perspective that counts. Really, it doesn't matt
20.
by Retra 7y ago
They all say wikipedia.org next to them.
21.
by Retra 7y ago
Federal tyrants have access to nuclear weapons, missiles, aircraft carriers, tanks, drones, satellites, etc. How do you expect to fend off tyranny with asymmetric military capabilities? At best it would put you in a perpetual state of guer
22.
by Retra 7y ago
I'm going to quote a previous comment of mine here, because I think your rhetoric is shallow: >Violence is usually too far removed from the relevant abstractions. It's not difficult to see violence behind everything, because ru
23.
by Retra 7y ago
>My argument is about this case, not about hypothetical cases in which animals cause each other to suffer. I don't know what you're talking about. You said it is wrong to assume humans are different from animals, which makes th
24.
by Retra 7y ago
>This kind of argument relies on the idea that human beings and animals are fundamentally different The argument that humans have any sort of ethical duty at all assumes that humans and animals are fundamentally different. Animals don&#x
25.
by Retra 7y ago
From an outside perspective, that waste is probably the most interesting and valuable part of the moon now. And this idea of 'purity' is rather absurd, given the size of the moon. Almost nothing in the universe is so pure that you
26.
by Retra 7y ago
Shared morality makes right, but might makes right wherever a conflict of moralities cannot be resolved by shared ideals.
27.
by Retra 7y ago
Not per se , but that would allow for any inefficiencies to be moved around, which is not contrary to what I'm arguing. It's quite a bold claim to say that people will think faster or more efficiently in general, but not as bold
28.
by Retra 7y ago
The guarantee is not a need, it is an opportunity that your potential effective employees are looking for. If you deny them that opportunity, they will look elsewhere and be highly effective for someone else.
29.
by Retra 7y ago
It's easy to give vague advice though, and the more vague it is the less actionable it tends to be. These "huge leaps" can be seen as a counterpoint to that, where people are trying to do something , and anything less extrem
30.
by Retra 7y ago
It's not just people's heads that need protection. Roads, traffic lights, cars, power lines, windows... people can die in lots of ways other than having a drone fall directly on their head.

More ›