But I might nuance that further. Interestingly, Craig and Klaudt do share the hypocritical-persecution-of-similar-others quality. They are jerks of a stripe this way.
This kind of thing seems so common that it's growing reflexive to narrow one's eyes at the more vocal bashers of child molesters and gays.
I'm not really up on economics, to be honest. But when I google for "Change in National Debt as % of GNP" I get the impression that each administration has significant impact on economics.
And saying "technically Congress started the wars" is like saying "technically the bull started the bullfight". I recommend reading up on the Bush administration's pre-9-11 interests in Iraq.
How does this earthquake business work exactly? Does tension build up and then sometimes you get big slips and thus big quakes? So maybe causing an earthquake a day is a good idea?
Ain't it sad folks don't find it unfortunate that he bemoans the atypicality of the copying solution?
Well, perhaps. It would be great if people understood that copying isn't theft and that media fatcats are cultural parasites, but at the same we need to be cognizant of the system we're stuck in. Things are changing, though. The fat's on its way to getting trimmed. You can smell the rancidity already in the form of *AA/"intellectual property" trade group lawsuits and cruftily constraining DRM. Hopefully we'll get to a system that supports the natural flexibility of data (copying is easy and harmless) while at the same time encouraging artists. Then, yes, it'd be a pity for "just download it" not to be the norm.
Wait- Unless you mean that folks don't find it unfortunate he bemoans the atypicality of the copying solution because it's already the norm? But surely you don't mean that.
You're welcome. I find myself often influenced by fearful or desirous thinking, so I try very hard to be mindful of it.
I should hope that global warming believers wouldn't actually be joyous over the suffering of people in flooded cities. If you run into people like that, I might suggest disengaging. That kind of attitude isn't helpful and it's unlikely that there'll be any reasonable progress in discussion with them.
A general disapproval (though not really a disdain) of SUVs is sensible, however. If not for the specific impacts of pollution and contribution to global warming (global warming isn't a binary phenomenon), then at least by the effect of fostering foreign dependence, or at least for the general principle of precaution in a system that does not have infinite carrying capacity.
We've got 7B people on this rock and that's a lot. It's so much so that, yes, it's entirely plausible our resource consumption is promoting substantial environmental toxicity. If the toxicity of the environment is something we're just beginning to feel, it's begun accumulating at a rate significantly faster than it can clear. Which means that every little bit added has more impact. 7B people. In 40 years we'll have 9B. Adding nearly a third more population in our lifetime is surely a recipe for disaster if coupled with a mentality that the luxury of SUVs or driving daily is okay.
I'm sorry to be contradictory in expressing beliefs I expect are at odds with your own. I want you to know that I don't consider myself superior and I don't disdain you for thinking differently. I am worried, however, that indulgence at this point moves us towards doom. I think we're falling into a fire and I would prefer that science pull our collective ass out of it, but it's irresponsible to bank on that. Meanwhile, I'll try to convince those who don't believe, without sacrificing respectful treatment of them, and I will certainly do what I can to minimize my own impact.
That was nothing more than blatant ad hominem and you should be ashamed.
Actually, no.
No argument is made or intended to be supported based on my so-called "attack", so there's no logical fallacy.
And not every criticism is an attack. But the starker the failing, the more readily we will perceive viciousness in a person's pointing it out. "You don't have to apply ethics where food is concerned" is obviously dumb. But there's no inherent viciousness in pointing out that that's dumb. Rather, I do it because it needs doing, to reduce stupidity's influence. I still care about the person who said it. My perspective is that being dumb doesn't mean that you should be devalued, only that you should have your influence corralled. In fact, it is because I value that person, and all others, that I wish to limit the influence of that person's stupidity. I am trying to make the world a better place for them and us all. The criticism and commendations come from a place of caring, and are thus the opposite of an attack.
So, "ad hominem" in the sense that it is to the [person] (from a place of caring), yeah. Ad hominem in a good sense.
Still, the essence of your complaint is valid, even if the particulars are wrong. Having one's stupidity pointed out it hurtful! Ultimately, I believe that it doesn't need to be. Getting to that point, though, accepting (valuing) ourselves, is really hard to do, so we will mostly be sensitive to the notice of our faults. For now I can only assure you and "food is orthogonal to ethics" guy (same person?) that I care a great deal about your welfare, even if I see and report your faults.
Extinction is not suffering. But it seems to me like a kind of loss, so we should be concerned.
Factory farming isn't the only kind of farming in the world. Natural foods with kindly raised animals will always be a viable market. None of those species are going extinct. Don't fret.
The basic value of caring for (non-human) animals is impeccable. How you choose to go about doing that is also important. If something goes awry in the translation from fundamental values to action, then help is required. Getting upset over a fly is a bit much.
I might recommend for folks who are evidently not very bright that they take great caution in influencing the world. We would do well for you to keep to yourself.
Others who are more capable will work towards making the world a better place. For everyone. Including you. To hinder them is to make your own lot worse.
Yours is not a factory farm. Having more farms like yours would be an ethical improvement. Surely you're finding it harder to compete with the bigger businesses that engage in high-density, hormone, and antibiotic farming? Maybe you're pushed towards niche albeit premium markets like whole foods?
But maybe you among most folks would have a good idea of what a real factory farm is like? Have you heard tale or seen one?
Yeah, so the hypothetical extreme is... hypothetical.
If not complete, at least there could be some change. If someone is punching you in the face once a minute and they don't stop completely, but they do stop punching you every other minute, that's an improvement. In my book.
But maybe your definition of "improve" requires that there be a complete change?
Arguably, PETA's position is that animals can experience suffering, and that ethical treatment means not raising them in horrific factory farms. I don't think that's warped.
Do you like to torture dogs? If you really think they are non-sentient (i.e., they cannot experience suffering), then the answer is "Mu. Your question does not make sense; dogs cannot be tortured." But, no, your response is quick denial. That presumes that animals can feel. Which means that ethics apply.
Probably your real argument lies along the lines of "my pleasure in eating factory-raised animal meat is of greater value than the freedom from suffering the animals would have experienced". Which, really, is shitty. I did my thinking a while ago, and rather than rationalize up a bunch of specious arguments so that I could deludedly continue to enjoy eating meat, I opted to reduce my consumption.
But this is why I'm pulling for vat meat. Because I like eating meat. I want to get back to eating pork, goddamnit, and I don't want to be a rationalizing fool or an asshole in doing it.
"Anthropomorphizing". Really. As if our branch of apes were the only animals to ever feel anything.
Trust me, someone is always going to complain about this. If not PETA themselves, then some ultra-radical vegan faction.
You would do well to ignore the gripey extremes. I know a good number of practical vegans who are interested in vat meat for the ethical benefits, who are not worried about dogmatic issues.
Oh, wait... Is griping about the gripey extremes just about the same thing as being a gripey extreme? Am I getting trolled by a meta-curmudgeon?
The problem is that their lives are mostly not very nice, and too short. I doubt that will improve when/if the vat-grown clonemeat takes over the market.
How will it not improve? Let's say at the hypothetical extreme all factory farms are put out of business. Isn't that the complete elimination of short-lifespan, suffering animals?
Thanks for sharing. IRV is actually a pretty good system... in that it's better than plurality. In comparison, it could be better. Maybe there are manual count methods for better systems?
I have to say I'm still not entirely sure on the matter of electronic voting v. manual voting. I think most people who have strong opinions are basing them on too few criteria.
Slashdot Mirror
Ah, good catch. An important distinction.
But I might nuance that further. Interestingly, Craig and Klaudt do share the hypocritical-persecution-of-similar-others quality. They are jerks of a stripe this way.
This kind of thing seems so common that it's growing reflexive to narrow one's eyes at the more vocal bashers of child molesters and gays.
I'm not really up on economics, to be honest. But when I google for "Change in National Debt as % of GNP" I get the impression that each administration has significant impact on economics.
And saying "technically Congress started the wars" is like saying "technically the bull started the bullfight". I recommend reading up on the Bush administration's pre-9-11 interests in Iraq.
How does this earthquake business work exactly? Does tension build up and then sometimes you get big slips and thus big quakes? So maybe causing an earthquake a day is a good idea?
But what features? Anything your average person is likely to miss?
Huh.
Ain't it sad folks don't find it unfortunate that he bemoans the atypicality of the copying solution?
Well, perhaps. It would be great if people understood that copying isn't theft and that media fatcats are cultural parasites, but at the same we need to be cognizant of the system we're stuck in. Things are changing, though. The fat's on its way to getting trimmed. You can smell the rancidity already in the form of *AA/"intellectual property" trade group lawsuits and cruftily constraining DRM. Hopefully we'll get to a system that supports the natural flexibility of data (copying is easy and harmless) while at the same time encouraging artists. Then, yes, it'd be a pity for "just download it" not to be the norm.
Wait- Unless you mean that folks don't find it unfortunate he bemoans the atypicality of the copying solution because it's already the norm? But surely you don't mean that.
If you don't actually disagree with him, then why don't you help him out with a better example?
You bought your kids Christmas gifts and they don't know any better than to try to figure out what they are.
You're going out on a date and you don't want them to know just yet that your second-to-last girlfriend is stuck on you.
You're applying for a job and you don't care to have your prospective employers know you're gay.
Or whatever. Be constructive.
You're welcome. I find myself often influenced by fearful or desirous thinking, so I try very hard to be mindful of it.
I should hope that global warming believers wouldn't actually be joyous over the suffering of people in flooded cities. If you run into people like that, I might suggest disengaging. That kind of attitude isn't helpful and it's unlikely that there'll be any reasonable progress in discussion with them.
A general disapproval (though not really a disdain) of SUVs is sensible, however. If not for the specific impacts of pollution and contribution to global warming (global warming isn't a binary phenomenon), then at least by the effect of fostering foreign dependence, or at least for the general principle of precaution in a system that does not have infinite carrying capacity.
We've got 7B people on this rock and that's a lot. It's so much so that, yes, it's entirely plausible our resource consumption is promoting substantial environmental toxicity. If the toxicity of the environment is something we're just beginning to feel, it's begun accumulating at a rate significantly faster than it can clear. Which means that every little bit added has more impact. 7B people. In 40 years we'll have 9B. Adding nearly a third more population in our lifetime is surely a recipe for disaster if coupled with a mentality that the luxury of SUVs or driving daily is okay.
I'm sorry to be contradictory in expressing beliefs I expect are at odds with your own. I want you to know that I don't consider myself superior and I don't disdain you for thinking differently. I am worried, however, that indulgence at this point moves us towards doom. I think we're falling into a fire and I would prefer that science pull our collective ass out of it, but it's irresponsible to bank on that. Meanwhile, I'll try to convince those who don't believe, without sacrificing respectful treatment of them, and I will certainly do what I can to minimize my own impact.
it's extremely unlikely that it's ... limitable in any meaningful way without genocidal levels of population reduction.
In general I recommend minimizing focus on consequence when considering the truth of a matter.
Fear or desire around consequence distorts judgement.
Hm. Maybe try it for dinner? And make sure to eat large helpings. I await tomorrow's report.
Yes, priority "Low". And you can adjust the CPU % it uses, too.
Honestly, it's a pretty good definition for the term, I think. Jibes with "capacity for sensation or feeling."
I'm at a loss for another word to describe this phenomenon (aside from "consciousness") and am open to suggestions.
Because an animal can feel pain and fear does not necessarily make them sentient.
It seems you also have some definition in mind?
That was nothing more than blatant ad hominem and you should be ashamed.
Actually, no.
No argument is made or intended to be supported based on my so-called "attack", so there's no logical fallacy.
And not every criticism is an attack. But the starker the failing, the more readily we will perceive viciousness in a person's pointing it out. "You don't have to apply ethics where food is concerned" is obviously dumb. But there's no inherent viciousness in pointing out that that's dumb. Rather, I do it because it needs doing, to reduce stupidity's influence. I still care about the person who said it. My perspective is that being dumb doesn't mean that you should be devalued, only that you should have your influence corralled. In fact, it is because I value that person, and all others, that I wish to limit the influence of that person's stupidity. I am trying to make the world a better place for them and us all. The criticism and commendations come from a place of caring, and are thus the opposite of an attack.
So, "ad hominem" in the sense that it is to the [person] (from a place of caring), yeah. Ad hominem in a good sense.
Still, the essence of your complaint is valid, even if the particulars are wrong. Having one's stupidity pointed out it hurtful! Ultimately, I believe that it doesn't need to be. Getting to that point, though, accepting (valuing) ourselves, is really hard to do, so we will mostly be sensitive to the notice of our faults. For now I can only assure you and "food is orthogonal to ethics" guy (same person?) that I care a great deal about your welfare, even if I see and report your faults.
Extinction is not suffering. But it seems to me like a kind of loss, so we should be concerned.
Factory farming isn't the only kind of farming in the world. Natural foods with kindly raised animals will always be a viable market. None of those species are going extinct. Don't fret.
The basic value of caring for (non-human) animals is impeccable. How you choose to go about doing that is also important. If something goes awry in the translation from fundamental values to action, then help is required. Getting upset over a fly is a bit much.
Oh, look at this: http://blog.peta.org/archives/2009/06/obama_and_the_f2.php
It seems they weren't upset.
I might recommend for folks who are evidently not very bright that they take great caution in influencing the world. We would do well for you to keep to yourself.
Others who are more capable will work towards making the world a better place. For everyone. Including you. To hinder them is to make your own lot worse.
Yours is not a factory farm. Having more farms like yours would be an ethical improvement. Surely you're finding it harder to compete with the bigger businesses that engage in high-density, hormone, and antibiotic farming? Maybe you're pushed towards niche albeit premium markets like whole foods?
But maybe you among most folks would have a good idea of what a real factory farm is like? Have you heard tale or seen one?
Yeah, so the hypothetical extreme is ... hypothetical.
If not complete, at least there could be some change. If someone is punching you in the face once a minute and they don't stop completely, but they do stop punching you every other minute, that's an improvement. In my book.
But maybe your definition of "improve" requires that there be a complete change?
Arguably, PETA's position is that animals can experience suffering, and that ethical treatment means not raising them in horrific factory farms. I don't think that's warped.
Do you like to torture dogs? If you really think they are non-sentient (i.e., they cannot experience suffering), then the answer is "Mu. Your question does not make sense; dogs cannot be tortured." But, no, your response is quick denial. That presumes that animals can feel. Which means that ethics apply.
Probably your real argument lies along the lines of "my pleasure in eating factory-raised animal meat is of greater value than the freedom from suffering the animals would have experienced". Which, really, is shitty. I did my thinking a while ago, and rather than rationalize up a bunch of specious arguments so that I could deludedly continue to enjoy eating meat, I opted to reduce my consumption.
But this is why I'm pulling for vat meat. Because I like eating meat. I want to get back to eating pork, goddamnit, and I don't want to be a rationalizing fool or an asshole in doing it.
"Anthropomorphizing". Really. As if our branch of apes were the only animals to ever feel anything.
Trust me, someone is always going to complain about this. If not PETA themselves, then some ultra-radical vegan faction.
You would do well to ignore the gripey extremes. I know a good number of practical vegans who are interested in vat meat for the ethical benefits, who are not worried about dogmatic issues.
Oh, wait... Is griping about the gripey extremes just about the same thing as being a gripey extreme? Am I getting trolled by a meta-curmudgeon?
The problem is that their lives are mostly not very nice, and too short. I doubt that will improve when/if the vat-grown clonemeat takes over the market.
How will it not improve? Let's say at the hypothetical extreme all factory farms are put out of business. Isn't that the complete elimination of short-lifespan, suffering animals?
You might be interested: Robber's Cave Experiment
Another (not a scientific) study: The Third Wave
Thanks for sharing. IRV is actually a pretty good system... in that it's better than plurality. In comparison, it could be better. Maybe there are manual count methods for better systems?
I have to say I'm still not entirely sure on the matter of electronic voting v. manual voting. I think most people who have strong opinions are basing them on too few criteria.
I could be wrong, then. Tell me more about preferential voting and paper ballots that you're familiar with?
Maybe a long and ancient history.
But, yeah, I am referring to the difficulty in the US specifically.
Tell me, how would you, today, go about coercing votes in any practical way?
Vote coercion can't happen on effective scales.
How much cost and danger is involved with coercing a single vote?