I find a sentence with incorrect grammar harder to read. I may just not understand it or may misinterpret it. Your computer will do the same when you program it. A basic principle of interface design is not to do something unexpected (like suddenly changing the frequency!).
This doesn't mean I'm perfect - I merely strive for perfection.
You have already done more to protect the rights of common people than most governments in the world have in years.
The average Western government each allows tens of millions of people to enjoy basic freedoms under the rule of law with a reasonably impartial justice system. By the standards of perfection, everywhere is awful; by contrast with justice in many places 40 (Spain, if you're gay?), 50 (Southern US, if you're black?) or 200 (Britain or France, if you're poor and steal a loaf of bread?) years ago, governments are in some areas doing really well. And if we spend a moment imagining ourselves as a chattel-wife in Saudi Arabia for a moment or held at gunpoint for everything around us in Somalia, suddenly that horrible rights-denying US doesn't seem so bad.
It's clear that things have been getting worse over the past 30 years in the West. It's clear that we could demand and do a lot better. It's also clear that lulzsec's civil disobedience is having some sort of effect, although it's not quite clear how it'll play out (maybe it'll just be used as an excuse to impose more stringent anti-terror[tm] laws on the Internet?). But, when compared with history and the world in general, protecting the rights of common people is something your government almost certainly does more of every day than lulzsec. Don't throw out the baby with the bath water, even if the baby is sick.
That's fair enough. I can see your point and there's no real *answer* except one which selects some fairly arbitrary axioms. It's not even necessary to accept the way nature seems to have been so far - as you say, we can modify our environment to suit us. So if I have an axiomatic thing for reducing suffering in some way then I can achieve that to a certain extent without going insane. To determine what extent is reasonable I need to review, from time to time, questions such as the above.
'sok, I'm not fretting, just contemplating while wearing my heart a little on my sleeve about life in general. I've been on the internet long enough that I don't really mind sounding soft to strangers here - it acts as its own barrier to the BLAARGH EMOTIONS YOU SUCK responses some people give.
wat r u implying u disablist nazi racist communist capitalist god-bashing jesus-worshipping privileged bitter working class low IQ ivory tower academic anti-semitic israeli lobbyist goat-worrier?
Also, yes. But I preferred W. S. Coffin(!)'s original. Though I imagine the rat would respond with a tour of his hookers and blow. Conjunction.
Kitty doesn't tolerate a collar and, to coin a local behaviourist's term, I don't think it'd be ethologically appropriate to keep him in any more - he already stays in at night and in the early morning to prevent over-adventuring or encountering foxes and roaming toms. We're fortunate not to have the cat-predators some of my friends across the pond contend with, and the humans are fairly well behaved. He certainly wouldn't like staying in any more, being a young, active and quite social guy. (And has some of the dog-like behaviours which make me expect ocicat heritage, including clear ability and interest in learning commands!)
But TBH the area's not exactly very urban and I don't think he's making significant impact on the birds. I think it's more an exercise in sustainability and encouraging bird life than saving a population which would otherwise die off. The birds which do not eat mealworms get various nuts and suet things and so on. I really don't know that much about bird life myself, but the topic was in my mind because I was asked by my partner to help out.
Well, that's one clear opinion, certainly. And everything you say applies to people. What's more, on a universal scale we're just seven billion tiny sacks of dirty water rolling about on an irrelevant ball of inorganic molecules orbiting an inconsequential sphere of hydrogen and helium in an unspectacular galaxy in an indifferent universe. I mean, seriously:
We are just fucking humans.
Don't be a slave to your perception of nature. I'm as much part of nature as you, your dog, and my partner's mealworms. If I can take a different approach to life, it means nature's more variable than you think it to be. Isn't that at least slightly reassuring?
I recognize all of the rights of mealworms which they fought and secured for themselves by defeating the British. [...] When they make a convicing argument that they have rights and when they are able to assert themselves to that end, I'll listen.
It's going to be a tough time for babies and the seriously retarded. Unless you think that what one human does determines prae judicio what another unrelated human (but only human) deserves. Though you already admit to being speciesist.
The [only proper] purpose of government is to allegedly protect the rights of [human] individuals
Yeah, angling's a toughie. It seems to be inflicting unnecessary suffering and possibly quite damaging trauma on the fish, although it's certainly not torture for its own sake.
I guess the best approach today is to promote equipment which minimises harm to the fish. This applies to fishing in general, of course - unregulated drift netting, for example, is in the long term wrong on every count.
For instance, we could minimize the exploitation of whales by killing every single one them
If you've ever had the misfortune of looking into PETA (or, worse, working with people in PETA *shudder*), you'll hear its adherents say things like that - not only of animals which are hunted or farmed but also of pets. "Every dog is better off being put to sleep than living or having lived as a companion slave!" This was one of the main reasons I suggested avoiding them, except to see how far away from reasonable you can travel without actually going around killing people.
Do you not see how killing an animal in this context is exploiting it for the furtherance of your (possibly insane quasi-religious cult) philosophy? If you see nature in terms of struggling species as well as living individuals, do you not see that the worst possible exploitation could be regarded as one which eradicates a whole species?
I know it requires more effort but I suggest again that you read the views and writings of some of those organisations listed. Your questions and strawmen are understandable but typical. If this were some computing topic, it'd be the time I'd politely suggest that you read the fine manual.
If the fox reacts in a similar way to us, couldn't it follow a similar reasoning process, therefore taking conscious choices?
It could. But it's a huge leap to assume that it reasons like us in general just because it reacts like us to specific immediate stimulus.
A light switch reacts to the pressure of my finger by turning on a light, does that mean we should never harm light switches?
Why is it a habit of geeks to make horribly over-simplifying analogies?:-/ Oh well, I'm sure I've been guilty of it too from time to time. The question I gave was about simpler organisms which appear to react to stimuli we'd regard as painful in a similar way to us. Light switches do not react like this.
If you were to build a robot which acted in a manner indistinguishable from a fox, then - as many have argued in many places - there is a good case for looking at it from an ethical PoV as if it were a fox. The ultimate AI achievement of building an AI indistinguishable from a human would result in regarding the AI from an ethical PoV as if it were human.
(This of course leads to the suggestion that building a human-like AI may in practical terms be a massive waste of time: if you need more ultra-intelligent tools then it's ethically no worse to simply breed slave humans.)
Although, TBH, I'm not that interested in this sort of argument, because there's so much cookie-cutter work to move on from your oft-heard pronouncement to productive debate.
There's lots of work scrawled about veganism and animal rights which come down to weighing minimisation of exploitation (in the widest sense, of nature in general including other humans) against causing yourself excessive hardship. Sometimes there's an underlying philosophy about man using his uniquely powerful mind to achieve some form of balance; sometimes it's merely applying pragmatism to a sense of compassion.
Examine the beliefs of the Vegan Society or the BUAV or any number of groups which are about promoting alternatives, carefully avoiding PETAesque "man is evil and must die" groups. Consider also the more middle-of-the-road position of the British Humanist Society which focuses on minimising suffering.
You're deliberately choosing a different sort of question which only requires a more primitive thought process. Experiencing empathy and pondering high and low level decisions you could make when presented with the option to cause or not cause damage to strangers is not the same as judging the best route from A to B while avoiding C. Even then, the level of input and processing an iguana can put into route optimisation is far exceeded by the level of input a human can put.
I have no doubt that many species can make immediate plans, but that's not the same as contemplating in the abstract. Do you think that a tiger about to catch a deer ever stops and thinks, "You know, I won't catch that deer today... I'm a little hungry but around this time of year another one is bound to come along, and it's clearly still looking after its young. Its young are too small for meat, and they'll slowly starve to death if I eat the mother. So I'll wait for a buck." (Don't sidetrack with an argument about whether that reasoning is entirely optimal! The question is whether it's possible for a tiger to contemplate like this.)
tl;dr Iguanas may be cunning beasts and capable of demonstrating a lot of the abilities we have but I don't think they'll ever manufacture computers or write philosophy treatises. It's not because they don't choose not to but because they can't.
I can only think of one: killing is bad if it negatively affects your own survival.
I'll have to stop you there. Why is my own survival rationally important? I'm not disagreeing, but I would like to know your answer - in particular, I want to make sure that your answer isn't begging the question with something like "because nature is about [genetic] survival".
You don't need to give balanced input because you don't need to seek balance in everything, nature is not balanced
So you're saying that I need to be a slave to your perception of nature?
It's natural for the early bird to eat the unearthed worm. And it's just as natural for me, the human, to contemplate on it and wonder whether I should act like the bird or behave differently.
It depends how you define "choice", obviously. I can make a careful and informed rational choice. I don't think the bird can. I don't think your iguana can. Maybe we'll learn that these creatures are way smarter and more insightful in the reasoning behind the choices they make. It doesn't matter, really - what matters from my PoV is that I know I am capable of making such a choice.
So if it's about improving the quality of life for humans and animals humans care about, its okay?
It's not black and white, is it? Consider: experiments on animals for lifesaving medication, carefully designed to minimise use of animals and to minimise suffering of those animals, is considered acceptable by many. But this does not preclude considering animal testing of cosmetics unacceptable - indeed, the EU imposed a testing ban in 2009.
One of the traditional anti-animal-rights strawmen is to claim that all vegans/animal rights activists/etc want no harm whatever to be caused to any living organism by any human. The conclusion usually follows that the only way of doing this is to kill yourself (even then, you're wishing a death sentence on all the bacteria inside you, more numerous than your own cells!). But every argument about protecting animals must in fact draw a line to show thee extent to which it is acceptable to harm the quality of life of living organisms. The line may be determined by quantity or human need or intelligence or sentience of the victim creature. It's these details, and the principles which lead to their application, which are up for debate.
What if the booth also was about improving the quality of life for some humans?
Torturing is not improving any quality of life, not least because it is psychologically damaging to the torturer. Torturing for fun doesn't even admit argument.
In addition, the end does not justify the means. "For every kitten you torture we'll donate $1 to a cancer charity!" is not acceptable. Nor, indeed, is, "For every 1 man you kill we'll donate $1,000,000 to save a thousand from starvation." There is no need to harm the kitten or the 1 man to achieve the goal. But, to stop the spread of malaria, it may be necessary to kill mosquitoes.
You're certainly right that it's nature's way, but the question mark appears when I'm making a conscious decision to have a hand in the process. The fox which digs a hole which exposes the worm and the bird which takes the worm don't really have the capacity to make a choice. I do have a choice to help the birds, or help the worms, or leave everything alone, or give some balanced input to offset the tremendous impact my modern lifestyle is having.
The Duke of Edinburgh, bless his privileged socks, fairly effectively summarised two different approaches in a recent interview: you can be an conservationist, concerning yourself at a species level with extinction and other large-scale changes; or you can be a "bunny hugger", worrying too much about the plight of some random donkey. I'd like not to lose sight of the wood for the trees without losing the compassion of the latter sort.
Are a few incidents of torture (assuming mosquitoes so experience it) resulting in death better than mass execution? What if the mass execution has a life-affirming purpose, e.g. to save humans and livestock from malaria?
What about the knock-on effect of promotion of torture?
The same question is asked of everyone who raises an ethical or philosophical question before its time.
"There's no divine right of kings." What the fuck is wrong with you?
"Blacks are people too." What the fuck is wrong with you?
"Class isn't a birthright." What the fuck is wrong with you?
"Chimpanzees have behaviour suggesting very human-like emotion and intelligence." What the fuck is wrong with you?
"Dogs may not be as bright as humans, but they have capacity for pain and suffering which must be taken into account." What the fuck is wrong with you?
"Much simpler organisms appear to react to stimuli we'd regard as painful in a similar way to us - do they feel pain too?" What the fuck is wrong with you?
"Or should we judge a species' worthiness to life by its intelligence rather than its perceived pain responses? If so, why shouldn't we judge humans similarly?" What the fuck is wrong with you?
I'm allowed to think about the questions. I'm not imposing any conclusion on anyone - I haven't even made one yet. Maybe I never shall, but in the meanwhile I retain an open mind. Does this worry you? Do you want me to angrily tell you that you're a murderer if you swat flies? Are you simply annoyed that I think about these sorts of things rather than whatever you like to think about?
What stereotype would you like me to conform to in order to reinforce your beliefs about those who disagree with you?
As a vegan pinko hippie who loves you all, this one has been weighing on my mind recently. My partner (who is omnivorous, but supports cruelty-free farming) decided to get some live mealworms a few days ago to breed and feed to the birds, explaining that the cat has been quite the bird assassin the past few months and this may help strengthen up the population.
While there's certainly no intention to "torture" the mealworms, just give them comfortable living conditions until they are put out where birds are likely to eat them, there's still the issue of sending little creatures to their death. Do I worry about it less because it's a worm and not a lamb? Or a dog?
(I have this image now of that strip where two guys are discussing some problem on the golf course and a black guy appears and says, "Is this the sort of problem white people have?" Really, I'm very grateful that I'm in a position where I can worry about stuff like this, although we have significant health difficulties in the family so it's by far my greatest worry... life's weird...)
So wait, the "downsides" are problems that regular power connectors also have, except they're much reduced with the magsafe connector...?
The fire hazard thing is much reduced? The accidentally coming disconnected is much reduced?
You post was a classic "lolz Apple claims they invented everything!" troll.
It distorts people's understanding of development of tech if one company with an excellent marketing machine misleads others. This in turn stifles progress. See my other post:
A 20 second search reveals, for example, patents 5873737 and 6267602 issued before 2000. "Magnets to help electrically connect stuff" won't be specific enough for a patent, though... as with USB, the trick is in designing a specific plug and then forcing everyone to play by your rules (read: pay your fee) to make compatible products, i.e. products which feature a plug or socket which fits.
Well, I'm not in the mind of every single laptop manufacturer, but like I already said, the disadvantages outweigh the advantages. It's a good idea when knocking the device to the floor is likely to cause horrible burns or a fire, but it's not worth it with a laptop. (And I'm constantly surprised by how many Apple laptop users talk about the Magsafe feature saving their laptop - does the modern Apple user treat his machines especially badly or is it just making up a story to prove a point?)
And, to add to your anecdote, my powerbook (G4 15") fell from my grasp at an airport long ago and landed on the rear corner onto a concrete floor (on the opposite side to the DC board) and got bent up a treat. Still works perfectly to this day, years and years later. Runs Ubuntu now.
Yeah, the old Apple laptops were fairly well built. I have a Wallstreet G3 with smashed plastic in the corner after some idiot decided to send it in the regular post with hardly any protection - works fine!
they'd not likely notice a sensation of a cable being pulled taught around a leg.
Thick trousers / boots / expecting resistance under the desk anyway / distracted / less sensation with age / diabetes / wheelchair. Would certainly apply to at least one disabled neighbour I assist from time to time - it's not some wild edge case, rather the sort of thing you have to think about when making sure a work environment is safe.
For the clumsier type, perhaps the Mac laptop will be dragged to the floor less. But the connector's no catch-all. I even recall articles when it first came out in which people tested it out and found the laptop would be dragged when pulled quite firmly in a certain direction.
Etch A Sketch is way sturdier than any Psion PDA.
Probably true in general, though fwiw my EaS stopped drawing properly after a few years. Dunno why. I can't draw anyway:-(.
Fine answer. I agree re the false dichotomy: the problem is that people think terrorist=bad vs freedomFighter=good, so all you have to do is convince people that some group is one or the other.
I'm not sure I'm clear about your use of the terrorist label: what if your strategy is to target civilians to destroy infrastructure / economy / etc., rather than to strike morale-breaking terror into the population? An efficient annihilation of a capital city with one large bomb might bring a country to its knees, for example.
Slashdot Mirror
I find a sentence with incorrect grammar harder to read. I may just not understand it or may misinterpret it. Your computer will do the same when you program it. A basic principle of interface design is not to do something unexpected (like suddenly changing the frequency!).
This doesn't mean I'm perfect - I merely strive for perfection.
You have already done more to protect the rights of common people than most governments in the world have in years.
The average Western government each allows tens of millions of people to enjoy basic freedoms under the rule of law with a reasonably impartial justice system. By the standards of perfection, everywhere is awful; by contrast with justice in many places 40 (Spain, if you're gay?), 50 (Southern US, if you're black?) or 200 (Britain or France, if you're poor and steal a loaf of bread?) years ago, governments are in some areas doing really well. And if we spend a moment imagining ourselves as a chattel-wife in Saudi Arabia for a moment or held at gunpoint for everything around us in Somalia, suddenly that horrible rights-denying US doesn't seem so bad.
It's clear that things have been getting worse over the past 30 years in the West. It's clear that we could demand and do a lot better. It's also clear that lulzsec's civil disobedience is having some sort of effect, although it's not quite clear how it'll play out (maybe it'll just be used as an excuse to impose more stringent anti-terror[tm] laws on the Internet?). But, when compared with history and the world in general, protecting the rights of common people is something your government almost certainly does more of every day than lulzsec. Don't throw out the baby with the bath water, even if the baby is sick.
That's fair enough. I can see your point and there's no real *answer* except one which selects some fairly arbitrary axioms. It's not even necessary to accept the way nature seems to have been so far - as you say, we can modify our environment to suit us. So if I have an axiomatic thing for reducing suffering in some way then I can achieve that to a certain extent without going insane. To determine what extent is reasonable I need to review, from time to time, questions such as the above.
'sok, I'm not fretting, just contemplating while wearing my heart a little on my sleeve about life in general. I've been on the internet long enough that I don't really mind sounding soft to strangers here - it acts as its own barrier to the BLAARGH EMOTIONS YOU SUCK responses some people give.
wat r u implying u disablist nazi racist communist capitalist god-bashing jesus-worshipping privileged bitter working class low IQ ivory tower academic anti-semitic israeli lobbyist goat-worrier?
Also, yes. But I preferred W. S. Coffin(!)'s original. Though I imagine the rat would respond with a tour of his hookers and blow. Conjunction.
Kitty doesn't tolerate a collar and, to coin a local behaviourist's term, I don't think it'd be ethologically appropriate to keep him in any more - he already stays in at night and in the early morning to prevent over-adventuring or encountering foxes and roaming toms. We're fortunate not to have the cat-predators some of my friends across the pond contend with, and the humans are fairly well behaved. He certainly wouldn't like staying in any more, being a young, active and quite social guy. (And has some of the dog-like behaviours which make me expect ocicat heritage, including clear ability and interest in learning commands!)
But TBH the area's not exactly very urban and I don't think he's making significant impact on the birds. I think it's more an exercise in sustainability and encouraging bird life than saving a population which would otherwise die off. The birds which do not eat mealworms get various nuts and suet things and so on. I really don't know that much about bird life myself, but the topic was in my mind because I was asked by my partner to help out.
Thanks for your thoughts.
Well, that's one clear opinion, certainly. And everything you say applies to people. What's more, on a universal scale we're just seven billion tiny sacks of dirty water rolling about on an irrelevant ball of inorganic molecules orbiting an inconsequential sphere of hydrogen and helium in an unspectacular galaxy in an indifferent universe. I mean, seriously:
We are just fucking humans.
Don't be a slave to your perception of nature. I'm as much part of nature as you, your dog, and my partner's mealworms. If I can take a different approach to life, it means nature's more variable than you think it to be. Isn't that at least slightly reassuring?
It's a "toe-may-toe" "toe-mah-toe" thing:
Isn't that reflexology? Or am I thinking about retifism?
I recognize all of the rights of mealworms which they fought and secured for themselves by defeating the British. [...] When they make a convicing argument that they have rights and when they are able to assert themselves to that end, I'll listen.
It's going to be a tough time for babies and the seriously retarded. Unless you think that what one human does determines prae judicio what another unrelated human (but only human) deserves. Though you already admit to being speciesist.
The [only proper] purpose of government is to allegedly protect the rights of [human] individuals
It's one of many opinions on the matter, yes.
Yeah, angling's a toughie. It seems to be inflicting unnecessary suffering and possibly quite damaging trauma on the fish, although it's certainly not torture for its own sake.
I guess the best approach today is to promote equipment which minimises harm to the fish. This applies to fishing in general, of course - unregulated drift netting, for example, is in the long term wrong on every count.
For instance, we could minimize the exploitation of whales by killing every single one them
If you've ever had the misfortune of looking into PETA (or, worse, working with people in PETA *shudder*), you'll hear its adherents say things like that - not only of animals which are hunted or farmed but also of pets. "Every dog is better off being put to sleep than living or having lived as a companion slave!" This was one of the main reasons I suggested avoiding them, except to see how far away from reasonable you can travel without actually going around killing people.
Do you not see how killing an animal in this context is exploiting it for the furtherance of your (possibly insane quasi-religious cult) philosophy? If you see nature in terms of struggling species as well as living individuals, do you not see that the worst possible exploitation could be regarded as one which eradicates a whole species?
I know it requires more effort but I suggest again that you read the views and writings of some of those organisations listed. Your questions and strawmen are understandable but typical. If this were some computing topic, it'd be the time I'd politely suggest that you read the fine manual.
If the fox reacts in a similar way to us, couldn't it follow a similar reasoning process, therefore taking conscious choices?
It could. But it's a huge leap to assume that it reasons like us in general just because it reacts like us to specific immediate stimulus.
A light switch reacts to the pressure of my finger by turning on a light, does that mean we should never harm light switches?
Why is it a habit of geeks to make horribly over-simplifying analogies? :-/ Oh well, I'm sure I've been guilty of it too from time to time. The question I gave was about simpler organisms which appear to react to stimuli we'd regard as painful in a similar way to us. Light switches do not react like this.
If you were to build a robot which acted in a manner indistinguishable from a fox, then - as many have argued in many places - there is a good case for looking at it from an ethical PoV as if it were a fox. The ultimate AI achievement of building an AI indistinguishable from a human would result in regarding the AI from an ethical PoV as if it were human.
(This of course leads to the suggestion that building a human-like AI may in practical terms be a massive waste of time: if you need more ultra-intelligent tools then it's ethically no worse to simply breed slave humans.)
So we've gone from reason to axiom.
OK.
Now is what is "good for you", good?
Although, TBH, I'm not that interested in this sort of argument, because there's so much cookie-cutter work to move on from your oft-heard pronouncement to productive debate.
There's lots of work scrawled about veganism and animal rights which come down to weighing minimisation of exploitation (in the widest sense, of nature in general including other humans) against causing yourself excessive hardship. Sometimes there's an underlying philosophy about man using his uniquely powerful mind to achieve some form of balance; sometimes it's merely applying pragmatism to a sense of compassion.
Examine the beliefs of the Vegan Society or the BUAV or any number of groups which are about promoting alternatives, carefully avoiding PETAesque "man is evil and must die" groups. Consider also the more middle-of-the-road position of the British Humanist Society which focuses on minimising suffering.
There's another post in this thread which covers the false dichotomy you're generating.
You're deliberately choosing a different sort of question which only requires a more primitive thought process. Experiencing empathy and pondering high and low level decisions you could make when presented with the option to cause or not cause damage to strangers is not the same as judging the best route from A to B while avoiding C. Even then, the level of input and processing an iguana can put into route optimisation is far exceeded by the level of input a human can put.
I have no doubt that many species can make immediate plans, but that's not the same as contemplating in the abstract. Do you think that a tiger about to catch a deer ever stops and thinks, "You know, I won't catch that deer today... I'm a little hungry but around this time of year another one is bound to come along, and it's clearly still looking after its young. Its young are too small for meat, and they'll slowly starve to death if I eat the mother. So I'll wait for a buck." (Don't sidetrack with an argument about whether that reasoning is entirely optimal! The question is whether it's possible for a tiger to contemplate like this.)
tl;dr Iguanas may be cunning beasts and capable of demonstrating a lot of the abilities we have but I don't think they'll ever manufacture computers or write philosophy treatises. It's not because they don't choose not to but because they can't.
I can only think of one: killing is bad if it negatively affects your own survival.
I'll have to stop you there. Why is my own survival rationally important? I'm not disagreeing, but I would like to know your answer - in particular, I want to make sure that your answer isn't begging the question with something like "because nature is about [genetic] survival".
You don't need to give balanced input because you don't need to seek balance in everything, nature is not balanced
So you're saying that I need to be a slave to your perception of nature?
It's natural for the early bird to eat the unearthed worm. And it's just as natural for me, the human, to contemplate on it and wonder whether I should act like the bird or behave differently.
It depends how you define "choice", obviously. I can make a careful and informed rational choice. I don't think the bird can. I don't think your iguana can. Maybe we'll learn that these creatures are way smarter and more insightful in the reasoning behind the choices they make. It doesn't matter, really - what matters from my PoV is that I know I am capable of making such a choice.
So if it's about improving the quality of life for humans and animals humans care about, its okay?
It's not black and white, is it? Consider: experiments on animals for lifesaving medication, carefully designed to minimise use of animals and to minimise suffering of those animals, is considered acceptable by many. But this does not preclude considering animal testing of cosmetics unacceptable - indeed, the EU imposed a testing ban in 2009.
One of the traditional anti-animal-rights strawmen is to claim that all vegans/animal rights activists/etc want no harm whatever to be caused to any living organism by any human. The conclusion usually follows that the only way of doing this is to kill yourself (even then, you're wishing a death sentence on all the bacteria inside you, more numerous than your own cells!). But every argument about protecting animals must in fact draw a line to show thee extent to which it is acceptable to harm the quality of life of living organisms. The line may be determined by quantity or human need or intelligence or sentience of the victim creature. It's these details, and the principles which lead to their application, which are up for debate.
What if the booth also was about improving the quality of life for some humans?
Torturing is not improving any quality of life, not least because it is psychologically damaging to the torturer. Torturing for fun doesn't even admit argument.
In addition, the end does not justify the means. "For every kitten you torture we'll donate $1 to a cancer charity!" is not acceptable. Nor, indeed, is, "For every 1 man you kill we'll donate $1,000,000 to save a thousand from starvation." There is no need to harm the kitten or the 1 man to achieve the goal. But, to stop the spread of malaria, it may be necessary to kill mosquitoes.
You're certainly right that it's nature's way, but the question mark appears when I'm making a conscious decision to have a hand in the process. The fox which digs a hole which exposes the worm and the bird which takes the worm don't really have the capacity to make a choice. I do have a choice to help the birds, or help the worms, or leave everything alone, or give some balanced input to offset the tremendous impact my modern lifestyle is having.
The Duke of Edinburgh, bless his privileged socks, fairly effectively summarised two different approaches in a recent interview: you can be an conservationist, concerning yourself at a species level with extinction and other large-scale changes; or you can be a "bunny hugger", worrying too much about the plight of some random donkey. I'd like not to lose sight of the wood for the trees without losing the compassion of the latter sort.
Are a few incidents of torture (assuming mosquitoes so experience it) resulting in death better than mass execution? What if the mass execution has a life-affirming purpose, e.g. to save humans and livestock from malaria?
What about the knock-on effect of promotion of torture?
The same question is asked of everyone who raises an ethical or philosophical question before its time.
"There's no divine right of kings." What the fuck is wrong with you?
"Blacks are people too." What the fuck is wrong with you?
"Class isn't a birthright." What the fuck is wrong with you?
"Chimpanzees have behaviour suggesting very human-like emotion and intelligence." What the fuck is wrong with you?
"Dogs may not be as bright as humans, but they have capacity for pain and suffering which must be taken into account." What the fuck is wrong with you?
"Much simpler organisms appear to react to stimuli we'd regard as painful in a similar way to us - do they feel pain too?" What the fuck is wrong with you?
"Or should we judge a species' worthiness to life by its intelligence rather than its perceived pain responses? If so, why shouldn't we judge humans similarly?" What the fuck is wrong with you?
I'm allowed to think about the questions. I'm not imposing any conclusion on anyone - I haven't even made one yet. Maybe I never shall, but in the meanwhile I retain an open mind. Does this worry you? Do you want me to angrily tell you that you're a murderer if you swat flies? Are you simply annoyed that I think about these sorts of things rather than whatever you like to think about?
What stereotype would you like me to conform to in order to reinforce your beliefs about those who disagree with you?
(in b4 ybht)
As a vegan pinko hippie who loves you all, this one has been weighing on my mind recently. My partner (who is omnivorous, but supports cruelty-free farming) decided to get some live mealworms a few days ago to breed and feed to the birds, explaining that the cat has been quite the bird assassin the past few months and this may help strengthen up the population.
While there's certainly no intention to "torture" the mealworms, just give them comfortable living conditions until they are put out where birds are likely to eat them, there's still the issue of sending little creatures to their death. Do I worry about it less because it's a worm and not a lamb? Or a dog?
(I have this image now of that strip where two guys are discussing some problem on the golf course and a black guy appears and says, "Is this the sort of problem white people have?" Really, I'm very grateful that I'm in a position where I can worry about stuff like this, although we have significant health difficulties in the family so it's by far my greatest worry... life's weird...)
So wait, the "downsides" are problems that regular power connectors also have, except they're much reduced with the magsafe connector...?
The fire hazard thing is much reduced? The accidentally coming disconnected is much reduced?
You post was a classic "lolz Apple claims they invented everything!" troll.
It distorts people's understanding of development of tech if one company with an excellent marketing machine misleads others. This in turn stifles progress. See my other post:
A 20 second search reveals, for example, patents 5873737 and 6267602 issued before 2000. "Magnets to help electrically connect stuff" won't be specific enough for a patent, though... as with USB, the trick is in designing a specific plug and then forcing everyone to play by your rules (read: pay your fee) to make compatible products, i.e. products which feature a plug or socket which fits.
In terms of application, the design has existed in the US for deep fat fryers since at least 2001.
So I repeat, why hasn't anyone done it before?
Well, I'm not in the mind of every single laptop manufacturer, but like I already said, the disadvantages outweigh the advantages. It's a good idea when knocking the device to the floor is likely to cause horrible burns or a fire, but it's not worth it with a laptop. (And I'm constantly surprised by how many Apple laptop users talk about the Magsafe feature saving their laptop - does the modern Apple user treat his machines especially badly or is it just making up a story to prove a point?)
And, to add to your anecdote, my powerbook (G4 15") fell from my grasp at an airport long ago and landed on the rear corner onto a concrete floor (on the opposite side to the DC board) and got bent up a treat. Still works perfectly to this day, years and years later. Runs Ubuntu now.
Yeah, the old Apple laptops were fairly well built. I have a Wallstreet G3 with smashed plastic in the corner after some idiot decided to send it in the regular post with hardly any protection - works fine!
they'd not likely notice a sensation of a cable being pulled taught around a leg.
Thick trousers / boots / expecting resistance under the desk anyway / distracted / less sensation with age / diabetes / wheelchair. Would certainly apply to at least one disabled neighbour I assist from time to time - it's not some wild edge case, rather the sort of thing you have to think about when making sure a work environment is safe.
For the clumsier type, perhaps the Mac laptop will be dragged to the floor less. But the connector's no catch-all. I even recall articles when it first came out in which people tested it out and found the laptop would be dragged when pulled quite firmly in a certain direction.
Etch A Sketch is way sturdier than any Psion PDA.
Probably true in general, though fwiw my EaS stopped drawing properly after a few years. Dunno why. I can't draw anyway :-(.
Fine answer. I agree re the false dichotomy: the problem is that people think terrorist=bad vs freedomFighter=good, so all you have to do is convince people that some group is one or the other.
I'm not sure I'm clear about your use of the terrorist label: what if your strategy is to target civilians to destroy infrastructure / economy / etc., rather than to strike morale-breaking terror into the population? An efficient annihilation of a capital city with one large bomb might bring a country to its knees, for example.