What part of reinventing the wheel is slashing NASA’s budget to shreds? This is just the last public test flight before space is walled off as a playground for the rich. They’ll get their tourist flights and luxury colonies and nice vacations from the boiling toxic hell they turned earth into.
If you think any resources are going to trickle down to us earth peasants, I’ve got a moon base to sell you.
The majority of Party arrests in the last 5 years
Lmfao OK so this is eating shit straight from the horse’s ass. They feed you this sound bite but then say the number of arrests and executions is a state secret. They’re talking out of both sides of their mouth and you just shut your eyes to the dissonance.
Everything is working perfectly as expected and above board, except for when it isn’t. But even when it isn’t it actually is, source: trust me bro
“Give me one source that I won’t arbitrarily subject to a genetic fallacy. Just one single one.”
A well reasoned and logical reply. Completely air tight argument. We’ve got an enlightened free thinker over here!
“Semantics”
My guy, they just laid out your argument and demonstrated the particular flaws in your reasoning. What you’re describing isn’t secularism, it’s wishing the state would enforce your particular world view.
Guess what? Removing religious mysticism from the equation doesn’t make that viable or ethical. They already tried this during the French Revolution and it sucked. Giving the state powers to attack nebulous things like metaphysical beliefs is reverting back to the problems we had for thousands of years under Popes and Kings and Caliphs and Emperors.
Putting aside how dumb of a statement that is, will the state be mandating homes and forcing people into them? If they have to do that just to accommodate my private beliefs, how is that different than a prayer room in public? Should I be arrested if I’m homeless by choice or want to live out of a tent in the woods?
Just skip the argument to state enforced atheism and don’t pretend this line of thought is rational and secular.
Fuck them homeless people right?
There is no logic to this person’s stance, they just want to do harm to the other. They wrap that in a veil of impartial rational reasoning to quell the cognitive dissonance.
If this law was phrased as anti-loitering to keep homeless people off sidewalks or banning private rooms for nursing mothers they would be up in arms. It’s functionally the same, but since it targets their preferred adversary they nod in approval.
A hunger crisis caused by a lack of foresight and unilaterally seizing food to cover the deficit? Lore accurate soviet girlfriend
It is, by a pretty wide margin. While many more people identify as Protestant, they’re split among dozens of denominations. I haven’t seen recent stats but in 2015 they were about 20% of the US. For comparison, the Southern Baptist Convention was the second largest at about 5.3%
The problem isn’t living lives in an alternative way, it’s that a full rejection of society requires an insular and opaque lifestyle. You don’t get qualified inspectors telling you your house is a fire hazard, you don’t have access to medical professionals or diagnostic equipment, any education/information/opinions become warped/inbred/outdated over time, lack of suitable elder care or child care (depending on demographics), etc…
“As long as they don’t become abusive” is doing a ton of heavy lifting in your argument. Who’s getting let in to check for abuse? What recourse do people have to get help when they may not have transportation or phones? Are they really isolated from society if they must submit to our judgement? What measures could exist to correct abusive dynamics without external coercion?
A corporation can be bad (and they might not be punished) but at least that’s in the light of day. Regardless of how shitty things seem, I’d take a public discourse about our social ills over hushed whispers between abused wives and children. We can openly debate about the pros and cons of leaving society but such seditious talk could cost you your livelihood if the leaders of a commune think you’re not all in.
You don’t have to walk out of your job immediately and never come back to fulfill the escapist fantasy. Full homesteading and flying a plane are both pretty lofty goals but people don’t hop in an aircraft without hours of practice and planning.
Not necessarily, but one focused on an extreme primitivist lifestyle probably are. People generally don’t coordinate maximum isolation from society without some ulterior motives.
A lot depends on how many luxuries you can go without. Tiny house means less work; no modern plumbing means no maintenence; ditch big hvac systems and only worry about heating/cooling a room or two; no indoor wiring needed if you only have a couple solar lamps. Yeah you’ll still have some reliance on getting stuff you can’t fabricate but it will be much less stuff
Livestock complicates things a bunch but it can be easier if you’re OK living off a simpler vegetarian diet and putting in the upfront legwork for more durable/low maintenance food sources (native food forest).
Your life might be dark and shitty but it will definitely be simpler and easier. But if you want to optimize for a higher QoL you’ll probably have to join a cultist farm commune.
I think if you gave them a year or two of runway with wikipedia and some YouTube tutorials they could figure it out. It’s not black magic
I thought a slopsism is what you get when the mohel pregames the bris
What if we paint a rainbow on all of these parasites and call it an ESG fund?
The solution is simple, just launder each comment through an LLM to fudge the style and details a bit
Edit, tried it for fun:
lowkey just run every comment through an llm and let it switch up the words and details a bit so it dosnt sound like you wrote it
I don’t quite understand what you mean by moral implications. Would I be upset if aliens started eating people? Yeah, that would suck. Would it be morally defensible to fight back in the same way a cow might kick? Of course. But I can’t consider their view because they are defined as a higher tier of being in this scenario.
You’re imagining little green humans with forks when it may just as well be a hyper-developed cloud of space bacteria. In their view, every human gut biome is a slave pit where trillions can be massacred at will.
Using us as incubators and then harvesting the “human” collection of cell resources is a perfectly ethical thing to do. Who cares about the shrieking sound waves and fluid that spills out while humans melt, that might as well be the smell of fresh cut grass. It’s just a bunch of clones of one DNA sequence vs the plethora of diverse cells unleashed from the gut. Easy decision.
Keeping us happy and healthy is crucial for the health of the gut biome, no need to cause any undue stress because that would hurt the final product. But of course, through gene manipulation or artificial selection they can make us into a more durable and docile species.
…And at that point modern humans are effectively extinct. I don’t have to worry about the ethics of an incubation vat in the same way you don’t worry about our bizzarre and unnatural domesticated crops.
the childish, optimistic look here really just highlights the compartmentalization you have to go through for a “coherent” position.
I’m totally lost here. You’re saying a comatose human is actually not a human but it is an animal (and therefore gets human rights)? My “higher thought” point is that our measure of life is relative to human features and human ability. A comatose human is very obviously still a human. Hell, even a dead human is still a human until it decays away and is recycled into something else.
Instead of silly screaming corn: What if I bred creatures that couldn’t express pain in any measurable way? Just sacks of flesh that you could herd around and harvest when they’re big enough. Slice off some reproductive piece and stick it in a tube to grow the next batch. Basically a meat tree on legs.
Is that unethical? Just because it’s gross? It’s no different than a plant. What if I told you I made them from pig DNA [no harm was done to the pig btw] but I cut out all traces of sensory organs that might convey pain. They can sense just barely enough to stand upright and only have the barest parts of a brain needed to grow more mass.
At what point does the distasteful husbandry become acceptable gardening? When the creatures can’t move? When the red blood is sap? Does the flesh have to be green instead of pink? Do the insides need to taste like a mango instead of bacon? Does it need photosynthesis like a spotted salamander or a sea slug?
Your position is incoherent if you can’t tell me exactly where the line is crossed AND that line is solid for all vegans. When does that lifeform gain or lose rights?
If you can’t do that or admit there’s subjectivity in the judgment then why can’t that subjectivity hold for cultures that bred dogs for food? Dogs are clearly not humans, but they’re too close to my personal experience of pets for comfort. That clearly isn’t the case with all humans, so I can’t pass judgment on the mere fact that a dog is eaten.
Simple: try putting it in each hole and if the car doesn’t work just take it back out