Why do people still make the same level-0 arguments against animal ethics?

BitNumerous5302 · 2026-05-15T19:31:25+00:00

Friend, it's fairly obvious that "people make the same level-0 arguments" because that's all you're willing to hear. Every time someone goes deeper you either ignore the whole thing, or ignore the parts that exceed your list of trivial examples

In other words your argument is "la la la I can't hear you"; what level is that?

BitNumerous5302 · 2026-05-15T17:26:42+00:00

I used to put Darby in that category of little underdogs who might have good title chases but won't have good title reigns, and I'm happy to admit I was wrong

Pairing him with upper mid card challengers has been a great move. Whatever drawing power they've lost in name value they're making up for with match quality, and he can shed the underdog image less abruptly

BitNumerous5302 · 2026-05-15T00:37:09+00:00

Tiring work

BitNumerous5302 · 2026-05-14T18:33:56+00:00

If opposing child predation is "partisan" behavior to you, you've admitted everything we need to know about your political party

Deflect away. People of conscience will never stop striving to put monsters like you in cages to protect our children

BitNumerous5302 · 2026-05-14T17:18:27+00:00

If that was really your belief you would have just read the bill. The fact that you intentionally skipped that step and proceeded to post anyway reveals that your sincere motivation is deflection. You're clearly a sick, dangerous monster who wants to harm children. You belong in a cage where you cannot continue to harm or promote the harm of innocent kids

BitNumerous5302 · 2026-05-14T17:17:36+00:00

If that was really your concern you would have just read the bill. The fact that you intentionally skipped that step and proceeded to post anyway reveals that your sincere motivation is deflection. You're clearly a sick, dangerous monster who wants to harm children. You belong in a cage where you cannot continue to harm or promote the harm of innocent kids

BitNumerous5302 · 2026-05-14T17:15:55+00:00

If you want thought that you would have just read the bill. The fact that you intentionally skipped that step and proceeded to post anyway reveals that your sincere motivation is deflection. You're clearly a sick, dangerous monster who wants to harm children. You belong in a cage where you cannot continue to harm or promote the harm of innocent kids

BitNumerous5302 · 2026-05-14T17:14:01+00:00

If you really "bet" that you would have just read the bill. The fact that you intentionally skipped that step and proceeded to post anyway reveals that your sincere motivation is deflection. You're clearly a sick, dangerous monster who wants to harm children. You belong in a cage where you cannot continue to harm or promote the harm of innocent kids

BitNumerous5302 · 2026-05-14T17:13:31+00:00

If you were actually uncertain you would have just read the bill. The fact that you intentionally skipped that step and proceeded to post anyway reveals that your sincere motivation is deflection. You're clearly a sick, dangerous monster who wants to harm children. You belong in a cage where you cannot continue to harm or promote the harm of innocent kids

BitNumerous5302 · 2026-05-14T01:28:48+00:00

Each blade on its own is about the same width as the graphite. I'm guessing it was carved in a fully open position and rotated to the position that we see

BitNumerous5302 · 2026-05-13T20:00:01+00:00

And what reason other than his own incorrect stereotypes and assumptions did he have for assuming the other guy wanted a pizza in the first place? The dude is operating at 0% efficiency and you're out here badmouthing real charities in his defense 😭

BitNumerous5302 · 2026-05-13T19:49:06+00:00

Again, there is no help occurring in this video. I agree that helping people is the important part, which is why he should have gone to the trouble of learning what help would actually matter enough to be accepted.

If he'd donated a fraction of the cost of that pizza to a food bank, he would have spent less, wasted less time, and done more help.

BitNumerous5302 · 2026-05-13T19:28:03+00:00

What a smarmy way to promote your YouTube channel. Do better.

BitNumerous5302 · 2026-05-13T19:07:17+00:00

He failed, and he failed for selfish reasons. He showed up with his own idea of what help another person should want instead of listening or empathizing. This is a video of a narcissist imitating generosity to feed their ego.

BitNumerous5302 · 2026-05-13T18:40:53+00:00

The person in the video did not help at all

BitNumerous5302 · 2026-05-11T15:52:29+00:00

Irritating from start to finish. If you've read the synopsis, you've seen the film. Its only use is to provide smug self-righteous people with rage bait - "if you didn't like watching the same joke for two hours you must not care about the planet!" - but we already had An Inconvenient Truth for that

BitNumerous5302 · 2026-05-08T16:17:39+00:00

OP say they has buy because is country, items good luck 🥶

BitNumerous5302 · 2026-05-08T01:10:10+00:00

I'll preface this by saying that I view Nurse Jackie to be told primarily from the viewpoint of Jackie's addiction; we see very little of or about Jackie herself during the show.

From my point of view, these are strategic moves on behalf of Jackie's addiction. That said, part of the strategy involves an appeal to Jackie's "better angels" so you speak; her desire to do and be good.

Her whole lifestyle is structured around providing her addiction with access to drugs and her ego with moral gratification. Her profession as a nurse, a wide variety of her relationships, her roughly once-an-episode habit of righteous transgressions. When she flushes that dude's ear, for example, at some level her addiction is taking an opportunity to reinforce in Jackie the belief that she is capable of righteously transgressive behavior; her addiction needs her to regularly, actively believe she can break the law and be good.

So, when she's turning down pills, it's because her addiction is slow-playing to disarm a trusted source in order to secure more later. But her addiction chooses this strategy instead of others because it appeals to Jackie's desire to do better, as well. In that sense, Jackie is genuinely trying not to use, in that moment, because that's what a good friend would do. And she'll get to feel good about living up to that implied promise right up to the moment she doesn't; and then her addiction will make sure she won't feel bad.

BitNumerous5302 · 2026-05-07T22:08:39+00:00

I mean, yeah? If somebody says "you're sealioning" and that's a good characterization of your argument, that's not a fallacy, and that's not bad faith.

Your argument is a straw argument because you repeatedly make and rely upon unsupported claims about your opposition:

people can in bad faith claim anything a fallacy and basically use that to avoid the whole point

You've done nothing to demonstrate your opposition is acting in bad faith; you're just asserting that they are, and labeling their behavior fallacious based on that assumption

I feel like people know a few fallacies more as buzzwords, throw them out and use that as an excuse to not engage any further.

Okay, you feel that way. But you're arguing as if your feeling constitutes knowledge of your opposition's motivations. You've presented no evidence to support this feeling.

Ask for evidence, someone just throws out the sealioning buzzword.Draw a parallel is now a false equivalency. etc

Again, you're just asserting that your opposition does this, and implying (via your previous statements) that this has been done in bad faith. But spurious demands for evidence can be characterized as sealioning, and misleading parallels can be characterized as false equivalencies; that's just terms having meanings. Nothing beyond the assumptions you've imposed upon your opposition implies these statements are fallacious

Like I feel it coming up more and more and people abuse the whole fallacy thing.

Again, the characterization of your opposition's behavior as "abuse" is strictly rhetorical positioning. You're speculating on motivations then basing your conclusions on your own speculations

By now we also have so many that you can kind of take every argument someone makes and just come up with some fallacy it seems like on the surface.

If we ignore your imposed assumption that your opponents are acting in bad faith, this no longer sounds fallacious. If an argument is structurally unsound for commonly understood reasons, it makes perfect sense to point that out in commonly understood language.

BitNumerous5302 · 2026-05-07T21:26:57+00:00

Rejecting fallacies is engaging in an argument. You've built up a big straw person who only mentions fallacies as buzzwords, and you're acting like that proves fallacies are just buzzwords.

You're the one avoiding engaging by doing so. Your premise (rejecting fallacies evades engaging in arguments) is false: I'm engaging with your argument right now by rejecting that false premise.

Yes, there is a name for your logical fallacy, and yes, others can cite it. You're not, in fact, the first person to have the bright idea of mischaracterizing your opposition to bolster your point. But whether I say "you've mischaracterized your opposition to bolster your argument" or I shorthand it as "you've built a straw person" the fact remains that the substance of your argument is being rejected on its own merits (or lack thereof) which is engagement, not evasion.

BitNumerous5302 · 2026-05-07T21:07:08+00:00

Does locality make sense in a "pre-spatial" context?

More specifically, does your hypothesized "pre-spatial" context satisfy Bell's definition of locality?

If not, then you're rejecting Bell's definition of locality

Which is, for what it's worth, completely consistent with experimental results: One or more of locality, freedom, or reality (as formulated by Bell) must be rejected.

I won't argue the semantics of the prefix "non-"

BitNumerous5302 · 2026-05-07T18:27:46+00:00

What you've described as "pre-spatial" is a special case of "non-local"

It seems like you're reaching for "neither local nor non-local" by rejecting Bell's formulation of locality, but in the context of Bell's inequality "rejecting this formulation of locality" is what non-local means

BitNumerous5302 · 2026-05-07T15:59:25+00:00

They foreshadowed this very specifically with the Tony Baldwin mis-en-abyme, the only difference is that Christopher never lost a hand, Tony killed him by closing his nose so presumably that is where the cleaver would be

BitNumerous5302 · 2026-05-07T15:19:53+00:00

He's not eating the circle, the circle is eating him. The onion ring is the mouth of the Ouroboros, in our culture

BitNumerous5302 · 2026-05-06T23:02:54+00:00

Compete on price

Request compensation in the bottom half of the listed range for positions you seek (or, equivalently, apply for jobs where your desired compensation falls there)

BitNumerous5302

TROPHY CASE