• 0 Posts
  • 44 Comments
Joined 1Y ago
cake
Cake day: Jan 12, 2024

help-circle
rss

also - sorry for ranting but this is a perfect time for it - people who wear earrings are stupid. they want to be pretty so they wear earrings, though if people like you because you wear earrings, better distance yourself from these people. also, the make-up economy is harmful. make-up contains hormone-like substances, they are a means of extracting money out of unwitting women, make women feel like shit if they don’t wear make-up, and distort perception of what a normal human looks like through advertisement. women become dependent on that stuff because if nobody used it, neither would they have to.


all. i deplore piercings (that includes earrings ofc) so much, it’s an act of self-harm and people are doing it because they’re so dead inside, they want to feel anything at all rather than nothing. we need a healthy relationship with our body again, and that definitely doesn’t include self-harm.



it’s not that difficult, it’s quite obvious that immigrants and poor people have less buying power and therefore create less demand, while probably working harder than any billionaires and therefore create more supply.

i’d also argue that is straightforward to see. i don’t see your misunderstanding?


I can think of a good reason but i’m not sure whether you’re willing to buy into it.

people naturally don’t think of themselves as individuals. people think of themselves as a group/society.

People recognize that under a republican US government, they’re significantly more likely to go to mars and have prosperous offspring. while if they’re stuck on earth, a recession and decline is waiting for them. they can’t verbalize it and probably aren’t even rationally aware of it, but i guess they can feel it with their heart.

of course lots of you folks are gonna immediately chime in and say “nooo i saw a youtube video that explained that it’s impossible to live on mars”, and honestly, you should reconsider why you’re so eager to deny a topic that you’ve clearly not put in as much effort to think about than the people who actually do care about this project. and also, assuming it does work out; what will you do then? be ashamed of your wrong prediction? because if you’re not, that means you don’t stand to your prediction, and therefore the prediction is worthless. i’m not sure whether i was too direct about this and somebody perceived it as rude, but i’m tired of this feeling of being stuck. we need to think long-term again.


You’re assuming everybody has the same buying power. That is in reality not the case. If you remove 20% of the people, buying power only goes down by something like 2%.


do you have plausible arguments for that that could be used to convince somebody of this that isn’t already convinced?


why am I a human and not a shrimp? Isn’t that astoundingly improbable?

haha yes i agree with that :D

my personal (kinda spiritual) take on this is that we are conscious because we are “nature’s soldiers” and we’re fighting the greater cause of life itself. That is what our consciousness is targeted at and what gives it justification in front of the world.



it will become automatically appealing to them the moment that is pays out economically for them. if they could afford more under a leftist politics, than under the current politics, people are gonna be all for it.


just a short reminder:

you can post a picture of a gun on facebook, because it is only a harmless picture of a machine that is solely built to kill people. definitely nothing that shouldn’t be shown in public

if you do post a picture if an exposed female nipple, banned, because guess what? that’s against the policy


I agree with the following: If your mother tries to kill you, and dies themselves instead as a result of the conflict, they have no right to complain.


I suppose to me, one’s moral weight is in their mind.

The problem that i see with that is the following: Assume a child has little neural activity (which, btw, is not true at all; children and newborns often have higher neural activity than grown-ups), but assume for a moment that a child had little neural activity, and therefore would be less worthy of preservation.

Now, somebody who has migraine, or has repeated electrical shocks in their brain, might be in a lot of pain, but has probably more neural activity than you. Would you now consider that since they have more neural activity, they are more worthy of life than you are? And what if you and that other person would be bound to the tracks of a trolley problem? Wouldn’t it then be the ethical thing to kill you because you have less neural activity?



“everyone agrees abortion is awful…”

that doesn’t make them right btw. hitler was democratically elected too; the majority isn’t always right.

Do they present any actual arguments? That’s what would be interesting, because that is something that can be discussed.


can you name any example? and also, who’s the judge? can somebody else decide you’re too rabid for their opinion?


what does that mean?

language of privilege

i’ve never heard that phrase


And to add to that, scientific papers should be published in open-access journals, instead of Wileys et al. And Universities could run and host these journals, as it is part of their core duty: To preserve and spread knowledge.

Essentially, universities and libraries seem to have a lot in common. Both preserve and spread knowledge.


counterpoint:

the labor market is a market, and as such regulated by the rule of Supply and demand. That implies: if the supply is increased, then the price is decreased. If the supply is decreased, then the price is increased.

In the context of the labor market, that means: If there’s fewer workers in the country (which comes naturally with a smaller population), then the price for labor (a.k.a. wages) goes higher. That increases the Quality Of Life for the people, and is therefore a socially good thing.


people will sometimes make decisions that are so bad that we have a moral obligation to intervene in order to protect them from the most disastrous outcomes

in archaic times, due to the primordial habit of turning people into slaves if they couldn’t repay their debts, people were legally forbidden from going into debt at all, except if they could prove that they were a reasonable person and it was economically likely that they could pay back the debt. that was in order to prevent them from the bad fates of slaves; which makes sense to me.