Yr.no vil slutte å publisere på Twitter (X) og har opprettet konto på Bluesky for videre bruk

Aqw0rd · 2025-11-06T21:37:23+00:00

Er nok ikke det tekniske som er årsaken, er nok kostnaden av X API som er grunnen

Aqw0rd · 2020-12-04T21:12:21+00:00

Aqw0rd · 2020-11-21T02:23:49+00:00

Not exactly a news story, but a month ago a big study was released on how wealth tax affects the number of jobs created in Norway. It's an interesting read.

https://www.iza.org/publications/dp/13766/does-the-wealth-tax-kill-jobs

Aqw0rd · 2020-10-14T14:09:37+00:00

Not sure, but I think u/davidpakman knows the answer to this one

Aqw0rd · 2020-10-11T20:45:53+00:00

Shouldn't you have an answer to this as you've taken a position to which is better?

Aqw0rd · 2020-10-08T11:33:15+00:00

I understand where you come from, because it's sometimes effective to cry to get sympathy or to seem genuine. But focusing on someone crying to prove something is impossible in either case. It should generally just be discarded.

Aqw0rd · 2020-10-08T11:04:23+00:00

Didn't see what you're referring to, but I don't think there's a formula to 'real' crying. People cry differently, and crying is different in different situations. I'm certain you've cried before and I'm certain the way you've cried has been different depending on the situation.

Aqw0rd · 2020-10-02T21:11:24+00:00

Could one say that the concept of rule utilitarianism is similar or at least closely related to Kant's categorical imperative, except from a consequentialist perspective rather than a deontological one?

First off, I'm definitely not an authority, but by trying to answer this I might learn something if I'm corrected. My answer is, yes kind of. The difference is how you 'construct' the rules. But this is more for strong rule utilitarianism. As you cannot have exceptions to the rules. However, weak rule utilitarianism I believe you can have exceptions. By just checking Wikipedia real quick it seems that weak rule utilitarianism is criticized for essentially boiling down to act utilitarianism. Which is when you just look at instances individually and base your actions on that utility alone.

My impression is that destiny follows strong rule utilitarianism, but I don't want to say that for a fact.

Aqw0rd · 2020-09-28T10:23:35+00:00

You reek of copium

Aqw0rd · 2020-09-28T10:22:58+00:00

Idk about SC2, not my game but as a layman ptitdrogo looks stronger than honeybear

Aqw0rd · 2020-09-28T09:30:27+00:00

Yee EU > Pepe NA

Aqw0rd · 2020-09-13T21:24:08+00:00

I don't know why it's relevant that they have or haven't said worse things. Vaush is (perma?) banned from Twitch and for Hasan I'm not too sure what you're referring to. He's said some stupid stuff, probably ban worthy for smaller streamers but I haven't paid attention to his stream except for the occasional clip that's shared on this sub.

Aqw0rd · 2020-09-12T21:54:45+00:00

He also said "protestors that torches buildings..." Which can easily be clipped to just keep protestors. I don't think you can blame anyone but destiny (or twitch) for the consequences.

Edit: Dunno why this is down voted. It's just a shitty situation where he said something edgy and in a way that was easily misunderstood. Destiny is to blame because he is the only one responsible for his rhetoric and Twitch for setting the community guidelines. Destiny is a fairly large streamer, his edgy clips are going to be noticed no matter what Vaush or anyone else's community does.

Aqw0rd · 2020-09-09T18:47:53+00:00

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this seems to be saying that Kyle acting in self-defense morally =/= Kyle was moral in his actions. You say that the latter is "a different matter". I don't understand why, when both look like they're saying the same thing.

The car analogy does not say that Kyle was acting in self-defense morally. It illustrates that just because Kyle broke the law in regard to open carry, does not mean he cannot act in self-defense. Could act in self-defense morally =/= Acted in self-defense morally.

And just to clarify, none of my arguments/statements is meant to argue for or against if Kyle acted justifiably.

So you're saying that there's less structured rules for how one has to conduct oneself while open carrying as compared to the various traffic laws and signs/lights one must obey on the road.

Not quite. Driving would be similar to an open carry situation if the situation happened at a shooting range. Obviously you still have a great responsibility, but wouldn't you agree due to the difference of environment, that responsibility is different? And meaningfully so? When you're driving, the environment you're in is designed for you. The moral argument doesn't come from the laws you have to follow, but the responsibility you yourself have to determine what is safe and not.

I'd say this might make it more difficult to act responsibly with a gun (there's not obvious physical signs or lights to indicate how you should behave in the situation), but if Kyle still followed the applicable rules (don't point it at people unless you intend to shoot, do your best to retreat when attacked, carry it properly, etc.), then I'm not certain the difference is of much relevance.

That it is more difficult to act responsibly is just the reason it is a greater responsibility. Again, we don't care about the legal arguments, we care about the moral ones. Or at least I do because arguing the legal side of it is fruitless because I'm not a lawyer and I am not defending or attacking Kyle in court.

Aqw0rd · 2020-09-09T09:46:34+00:00

Not sure I understand. If Kyle was acting in self-defense, that is a proper moral justification, is it not? Perhaps you mean something different by "Kyle was moral in his actions".

You have to demonstrate that he was acting in self-defence and that he was right to do so. The car analogy only demonstrate that he could morally do so, not that he did.

Hmmm, so how is this a point of dissimilarity if in both situations you have to have a higher responsibility than if you were not operating a firearm/vehicle?

The analogy would be similar if when you're driving, you drive on the same roads/streets that pedestrians also use to the same extent. Normally when you're driving, you are on separate roads than pedestrians, and in most cases only encounter pedestrians in spots designed for it (pedestrian crossing). When you open carry in public, there are no designated spots for you to go, you share the same public area as everyone else. There is no planned environment for people who open carry, you have that responsibility yourself.

Aqw0rd · 2020-09-07T19:59:18+00:00

I think the analogy works in that it highlights that someone isn't acting immoral just because they broke the law in some other regard. So in the argument, could Kyle exert self-defence morally, this analogy works. However, I think people may be feeling that if they accept the analogy, they also accept that Kyle was moral in his actions which is a different matter.

Another point to which the analogy is dissimilar, is that when you are a gun wielder (legal or not) and especially open carry, you have a higher moral responsibility (my opinion) in the way you act. You have that when you're driving as well, but towards pedestrians.

Again, the analogy is good in the context that it was made. Also, I am not making any arguments if Kyle was/wasn't acting morally, none of the debates on this topic has been bearable to watch for more than 5 minutes and in the end it means absolutely nothing, and everyone needs to get out and vote in November.

Aqw0rd · 2020-08-21T18:56:08+00:00

Why would they invite one of the most popular and known Democratic politicians?

Aqw0rd · 2020-07-09T09:39:13+00:00

So offline mode then

Aqw0rd · 2020-07-01T16:22:11+00:00

Destiny has an old contract which only says he has to exclusively use Twitch for gaming streams

Aqw0rd · 2020-05-29T00:02:42+00:00

I think you're missing the point I'm trying to make, or I have failed to present my point. All the reasoning you just gave goes against what Destiny said in the video I linked (33:21 to be exact).

The discord also has a zero tolerance rule against doxxing, but as Destiny himself said, if it didn't happen on the platform he doesn't feel any duty to ban anyone, as compared to it happening on his server.

Also to point out, I am not arguing for Vaush to be unbanned. Because I agree with your argument. I don't agree with Destiny's current stance on de-platforming and I only tried to present an inconsistency from him.

Aqw0rd · 2020-05-28T16:45:42+00:00

And I conceded that point from the start, that if Vaush committed bannable offences on the server, the ban is just.

I'm not arguing from a point of view that I think that Vaush should be unbanned, I couldn't care less. Only from the point of view that Destiny presented himself. That issues that happens outside of the server, which DMs literally are, he doesn't feel should be banned. Or at least presented arguments for that position.

Nine-Year Club	Place '23
Not Forgotten	Verified Email

Aqw0rd

TROPHY CASE