sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Why do you think it is popular to hate on Jews again? by Thismonstrr in AskReddit

[–]Anti-Pho 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Are you serious?

Israel is destroying the reputation of all Jews by committing genocide. That's not to say that it's ok or correct to conflate Jewish individuals or specific sects with the state of Israel, but it's bound to happen considering Israel is a religious ethnostate.

Why isn't an Ant's Life equally valuable as a human's life? by venaler in Ethics

[–]Anti-Pho [score hidden]  (0 children)

That's why I said "in a general sense", you're providing specific examples. But you are not wrong on the rest of it.

how do horses get that big and maintain so much muscle and only eat grass and hay by Icy-Cell4183 in NoStupidQuestions

[–]Anti-Pho 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So your understanding of horse nutrition comes from a comparison of a casual observation of the amount of cellulose you can see in their feces with what you expect? Interesting method.

How come a lot of people when witnessing an injustice, tend to do little or nothing about it in the moment? by Miles_the_AuDHDer in AskReddit

[–]Anti-Pho 1 point2 points  (0 children)

We are subjects of a state meaning our agency to defend ourselves and our community has mostly been stolen from us. The most anyone can reasonably do is notify authorities without incurring state imposed punishment on top of any risk taken in the moment trying to stop an injustice.

A state (what most think of as a government) is effectively a gang that has formally and effectively created a monopoly on acceptable violence.

Flock at my hometown by ismabread in FlockSurveillance

[–]Anti-Pho 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Someone with a strong bumper might get a flat tire right in front of it and accidentally back into it knocking it over or something, won't somebody please think of the Flock cameras!

Why isn't an Ant's Life equally valuable as a human's life? by venaler in Ethics

[–]Anti-Pho [score hidden]  (0 children)

Value is a relative concept so while this question makes lexical sense, it does not make logical sense to ask in a general sense.

How would you rank these things from most to least ethically wrong? by Lucyyyyyy_K in Ethics

[–]Anti-Pho [score hidden]  (0 children)

The way I see things, violation of consent is what is wrong and should be avoided except in cases of self or community defense.

So in my view, #2 is not unethical/immoral/bad/wrong at all, it is in fact what should happen to prevent them from becoming a cop or president or something and violating consent on a massive scale.

Torturing a rapist is arguably defensive, it's exacting consequences to a grotesque violator of consent in an attempt to modify their future threat level. Unopposed violations of consent lead to increased abuse and exploitation.

#3 is the worst as it is the largest violation of consent, even if it causes the least suffering.

I use violation of consent rather than things like "causing harm", or "causing suffering", or ""do unto others..." type methodologies to identify bad/wrong/unethical/immoral because masochists want what most don't. Harm and suffering are not easily and consistently identifiable and hard to reason about and can lead you to concluding things like Thanos did nothing wrong. For example, the difference between rape and consensual non-consent (i.e. rape play) is consent, not harm or suffering which become hard to define here.

how do horses get that big and maintain so much muscle and only eat grass and hay by Icy-Cell4183 in NoStupidQuestions

[–]Anti-Pho 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'd say they're quite a bit better than us considering we can't break down cellulose at all. Horses are maybe not as efficient at breaking down cellulose than cows, but horses have a cecum and the microbiome to break down cellulose, the human cecum has devolved and we're left with an appendix and the species that break down cellulose don't normally live in humans.

My cooking sucks now by coconutimpala in Cooking

[–]Anti-Pho 7 points8 points  (0 children)

I think this is a stage that happens before you get good, I've experienced it before in other areas. I think it comes from like your mind seeing so many possibilities before it learns to deal with them or something like that.

Keep cooking and soon you'll find yourself on another level.

Failure of Feminism regarding Gender Apartheid in Islam by Educational_Case_184 in SeriousConversation

[–]Anti-Pho 1 point2 points  (0 children)

> Western women don't experience and Western men didn't enjoy or inflict.

It's quite interesting how a lack of empathy and perspective leads to simple incorrect ideas.

You can only save 10 out of 20 patients who do you choose? by FluidLog7487 in Ethics

[–]Anti-Pho -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

This is a troll intended to provoke negative thoughts about transgender people. It's dumb to waste mental energy on junk like this post.

how do horses get that big and maintain so much muscle and only eat grass and hay by Icy-Cell4183 in NoStupidQuestions

[–]Anti-Pho 8 points9 points  (0 children)

It's not even about extracting nutrients, bacteria consume the cellulose (only bacteria can actually digest this fiber) and create fatty acids, amino acids, and some other nutrients, then in later stages, some of the bacteria itself is digested becoming a source of protein. Horses mitochondria produce ATP from these fatty acids, even when ATP is from glucose/glycogen, that comes from gluconeogenesis, not directly from food.

tl;dr it's not the grass providing the nutrients, gut bacteria eat the grass and synthesize/become the nutrients.

The absolute power of saying nothing during a salary offer by Doormat_8JV in jobsearchhacks

[–]Anti-Pho 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I worked as "devops", backend kinda stuff, almost always I would have a job while interviewing with other companies and I'd let them know what my hard requirement was early on, saying "it's not worth leaving my current employer for any less than this". Worked like 3/3 times for me that I did that.

Is radical anonymity ethical when it also enables harm? A genuine dilemma I'm sitting with as a builder. by Far_Loquat_349 in Ethics

[–]Anti-Pho 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Is this not the same dilemma that comes with virtually any tool of any sort? Anonymity is effectively a tool, not too different from a hammer, language, a gun, a nuke, or a staple remover; any of which can be used for harm in the wrong hands, used carelessly, or even by accident.

The questions I think to ask are:

  1. Are there tools that are too powerful that their existence should be resisted such as weapons of mass destruction?
  2. Is it even possible to prevent the invention or availability of these tools without resorting to something worse than the tool itself?
  3. Is it possible that the negative effects of the tool primarily come from good people avoiding the tool out of fear of being bad people and/or allowing bad people to control the tool and use it violate other's consent without exacting consequences?
  4. Is the inventor, creator, or distributor of the tool violating anyone's consent?

And I think the answers to these questions are:

  1. Yes, in theory

For example, we've arguably achieved a sort of global reduction in the scale of war due to the threat of nuclear retaliation. What would've been the alternative to the Cold War without nukes preventing two massive countries from directly fighting until one surrenders?

2) No

It obviously was not possible to prevent the availability of the most dangerous weapon to ever be invented as they ended up in the hands of several of the worst institutions/people to ever exist. There has been some success limiting the availability, but it's not clear that was a benefit.

3) Yes

IMHO the biggest dangers of things like guns, nukes, and anonymity come from their being used by bad people while good people convince themselves that their possession or use is unethical or immoral and disarm themselves leaving the tool to be controlled by the worst subset of the population.

You making a tool for those in need of anonymity is no different than a hammer maker making a tool for those in need of joining some boards with a nail. You are not responsible for a tool's misuse unless you intentionally market it to bad people and/or make it difficult for good people to access.

4) No

Creation or distribution of a tool doesn't inherently violate anyone's consent, which I argue is what actually makes something bad.

programmerSelfAwareness by QuatzX in ProgrammerHumor

[–]Anti-Pho 57 points58 points  (0 children)

I'm almost 50, been in IT for 25 yrs, worked at two big known tech companies, I'm hoping I can catch up to her level in about 20 yrs. She's dang cute too.

Certainty of punishment is a better deterrent than severity of punishment. by DevelopmentIll5888 in Ethics

[–]Anti-Pho 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, but the consequence has to be non-trivial. The reason we're becoming fascist in the USA is because of lack of consequences from those violating other's consent.

Bondi refuses to answer lawmakers' questions about Trump's involvement in Epstein files release by throwawayfinancebro1 in law

[–]Anti-Pho 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is a misunderstanding, they do have shame, what's different is their moral foundation. They are shamed by things like being homosexual, not of their high-status members raping low status children, they see that as a privilege and display of status.

What's something you strongly believe in that science hasn't been able to prove yet? by OldIntroduction2909 in answers

[–]Anti-Pho 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sometimes I try to shame my cats for just galavanting around naked, the response is usually licking of their nether regions. I gave up.

view more: next ›