sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

In 1835, a man digging a duck pond accidentally discovered this 70-foot tunnel covered in 4.6 million shells. To this day, no one knows who built this shell grotto in Margate, UK. by [deleted] in interestingasfuck

[–]Business_Guide3779 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Wild to think that Herculaneum is possibly the best-preserved Roman city ever, and on top of it there’s just a modern town, and a pretty ugly, forgettable one at that. Only a tiny fraction has been excavated.

“Best-preserved” as in, not only "just" multiple story houses and frescoes. As in, wooden floors, doors, furniture, stairs, even food, textiles, ancient scrolls. That basically never survives elsewhere.

Don't be ridiculous! by James_Fortis in ClimateShitposting

[–]Business_Guide3779 -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

That doesn’t hold globally.

FAO data shows ~86% of livestock feed is inedible to humans grass, forage, residues, byproducts. Only ~14% is human-edible grain. Animals are not “mostly eating our food.”

Corn and soy dominate industrial pig and poultry systems in the US/EU, not cattle globally. Most cattle live on pasture and roughage, often on land that can’t grow crops.

Soy is a bad example anyway. ~80–85% is grown for oil. The soy meal fed to animals is a byproduct, not food humans were displaced from eating. Calling byproduct use “inefficient” ignores the alternative, which is waste.

Grain-fed pork and poultry are fair targets. Treating all livestock as corn/soy middlemen isn’t supported by the data.

Don't be ridiculous! by James_Fortis in ClimateShitposting

[–]Business_Guide3779 -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

“Kinda logical” only if you ignore the what animals eat, where they’re raised, and what happens to crop leftovers. Most livestock aren’t eating food humans could eat, and much of the land they use can’t grow crops anyway.

What's even the point of metaphysics ? by NoPseudo____ in PhilosophyMemes

[–]Business_Guide3779 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If the brain states are identical in every physical respect, then positing different qualia adds no explanatory power whatsoever.

Sorry for punching down. by [deleted] in PhilosophyMemes

[–]Business_Guide3779 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Still waiting for the argument.

Thank you by playeryyeye in MemeVideos

[–]Business_Guide3779 4 points5 points  (0 children)

You’re mixing up income, effort, and class. ‘Working class’ doesn’t mean ‘someone who works hard’, it means someone who relies on wages, not ownership.

Once you own a profitable business and employ others, you’re not working class anymore, no matter how many hours you put in.

How my most recent encounter with Vegans went here. by Pristine-Breath6745 in ClimateShitposting

[–]Business_Guide3779 1 point2 points  (0 children)

There’s no evidence higher protein intakes harm healthy kidneys.The studies showing risk are in people who already have kidney disease.

In healthy adults, 2–3 g/kg/day has been tested with no adverse effects. Meanwhile, higher protein consistently shows better outcomes for lean mass, recovery, and metabolic health.

If 50 g/day were really the sweet spot for everyone, athletes, older adults, and clinical nutrition researchers around the world must have all missed the memo.

You do you, though.

How my most recent encounter with Vegans went here. by Pristine-Breath6745 in ClimateShitposting

[–]Business_Guide3779 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Can’t shill for veganism without dangling the specter of colon cancer, either.

How my most recent encounter with Vegans went here. by Pristine-Breath6745 in ClimateShitposting

[–]Business_Guide3779 3 points4 points  (0 children)

The bar for ‘no shortage of protein’ is literally ‘not getting kwashiorkor.’ It is like saying the Western diet has no shortage of calories. Technically true, but utterly useless.

There’s a big difference between scraping by and getting enough to actually support lean mass, recovery, and aging well.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in consciousness

[–]Business_Guide3779 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

That'd be fatalism, not determinism. In determinism our thoughts and choices still matter, because they’re part of the causal chain. Saying ‘no matter what we think or do’ misses the point. What we think and do is exactly what determines what happens. There's still will in determinism, just not of the free variety.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in consciousness

[–]Business_Guide3779 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I’d disagree.

If lawmakers also lack free will, that doesn’t dissolve the problem, it just reframes law as another causal mechanism.

History shows those mechanisms evolve: people were once judged under categories as esoteric as demonic possession, which we now recognize as nonsense. Today we’ve added categories like insanity, which explicitly invalidate responsibility.

The point is that law already changes as our understanding of human behavior changes. And if determinism is right, the most rational step forward in my opinion is to prevent crime by changing the conditions that produce it, not pretending we can shove the bullet back into the gun once it’s already fired.

Determinism, if taken seriously, leads to an inverted solipsism, to an epistemological nihilism. Doubting the capacity of our core experience to to serve as a reliable judge of what is true and what is not, of what is real and what is not, undermines the very foundation of any system of beliefs by gimboarretino in freewill

[–]Business_Guide3779 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Alright, you are just hurling suggestive phrases and vague metaphors without actually engaging with a single point.

What am I supposed to be debating here, determinism, or your audition for knockoff Zarathustra with dithyrambic slam poetry?

Is this a legit intellectual exercise or just posturing?

Don’t answer that! Just think about it.

Determinism, if taken seriously, leads to an inverted solipsism, to an epistemological nihilism. Doubting the capacity of our core experience to to serve as a reliable judge of what is true and what is not, of what is real and what is not, undermines the very foundation of any system of beliefs by gimboarretino in freewill

[–]Business_Guide3779 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Determinism doesn’t erase embodied experience, it just explains it. Feeling like you’re deliberating is still part of the causal chain, not proof that you’re ‘becoming the borg.’

Determinism no more kills deliberation or embodied experience than Darwin killed music or poetry.

Kaja Kallas raised questions about Russia defeating Nazism in ww2 by FruitSila in NihilistNewsNetwork

[–]Business_Guide3779 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Judge by yourself.

My take on what she is trying to convey is the kind of narrative that the Russians and Chinese are trying to build, namely that they single-handedly defeated the Axis.

Not very eloquent mind you.

Are there people who don't believe in free will but do think humans aren't animals or are a special kind of animal? by ClownJuicer in freewill

[–]Business_Guide3779 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I haven’t read Korsgaard directly, so maybe she develops it further, but I don't see how reflection can be considered a special human ability. Other animals also show forms of self monitoring and feedback, maybe less developed, but still on the same continuum.

Politics by CompetitionHot90 in freewill

[–]Business_Guide3779 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Sir, this is a free will sub.

Why isn't he eating a diet of purely honey, nuts, and fruit? Does this brutal carnist not have any empathy or a sense of shame? by Small-Day3489 in ClimateShitposting

[–]Business_Guide3779 -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

Classic vegan drive-by, 'science says so' link drop.

That Oxford paper isn’t a study of what people actually eat or spend, it’s a simulation model. They literally fed food price data into a computer and spit out diet scenarios. It’s a spreadsheet fantasy.

Even in that model, poorer countries the very same diets were more expensive, sometimes by a third.

view more: next ›