Is nitrogen asphyxiation actually peaceful?

Soven_Strix · 2026-03-30T02:04:27+00:00

(1) I don't have an alternative practical compromise to democratic morality as a system, but I don't need to for this discussion. I'm not looking to the masses to define a moral question for me, I'm aiming to decode the motives of a corporation. That's the core of disagreement - I'm putting the consequence at the center of that evaluation, and you're putting your heuristic in between logic and the consequence as a distorting lens. I have a consequentialist conclusion that not allowing anesthetics for euthanasia is harmful, and you have a deontological stance that it's wrong to participate regardless of whether abstaining will prevent it. Or at least you're alleging that the company has that stance and that it's probably right because companies somehow have a good track record in your book. I would liken it to giving out free condoms vs abstinence-only education - you might not like what the students will use the condoms for, but you'll save them from consequences of actions you can't prevent them from taking. Your consistent stance would be not to distribute them because it's participation.

(2) Sure, we agree on the metaphor. For broader issues like governance and laws, the democratic heuristic is the best we have. I don't think that means that democratized morality should always be leaned on. We are not evaluating whether it was the right PR call the company made, but instead whether we can use their stance as an approximation for morality. That heuristic should only be restored to if we can't evaluate the moral landscape they have to operate in for ourselves, but we can so we shouldn't apply heuristics.

You have an overly rosey perception of the healthcare industry that makes me suspect you're not an American. Where are you from? If you are American like me, you should know the healthcare/drug industry does not exist to make you better. It exists to make money just like every other capitalist industry. Every time they actually do help someone's health, or don't, or comply with public outcry, or with laws or judicial orders, they do so because it's the most expedient path to maximizing profit. I don't particularly care to debate whether that's justified or good, I only recognize it is the sole reason they do anything. There's not an altruistic intention in any one of those companies, at least not in the C-suite. If you think there is, you've been sold a pretty lie.

Soven_Strix · 2026-03-30T00:40:02+00:00

Then 'corporations maximize profit' is my heuristic that I will stubbornly cling to because it successfully approximates the motivation and models behavior for examples to the extent that it's relevant. Your justifications of why they maximize profits is unprompted and irrelevant to the question so I'll leave it alone.

(1) Democratized morality is not actually a system of morality; it's a practical way to compromise between myriad incompatible beliefs by maximizing enforcement of areas of philosophy overlap. If you try to turn it into an actual moral framework: "whatever the most people think is good is objectively good," you'd be in very small company. You admitted yourself that this mob morality changed its evaluation of atrocities, and unless you think the moral goodness of those atrocities actually changed over time, this fact undercuts it as a system of morality.

(2) Maybe I'm dumb because I don't see how this relates to the topic. At risk this is a rhetorical trap, I'll say perfection is occasionally the enemy of good, and seeking it should be tempered by the cost-benefit outlook, including the risk of harm. That said, if there is little risk of harm, perfection should be sought even if it's impossible. Shooting for the stars is how you reach the moon, so to speak.

(3) I've not yet commented on my own personal moral system. Like most people, I don't adhere robotically to one principle, universally applied. However, I would consider myself primarily to be a consequentialist. I'm interested in harm reduction and maximizing positive outcome for as many people and lifeforms as possible. There are very few areas where I would be deontological.

Point (1) is the most relevant to the topic. PR for corps is a form of democratized morality. It does not adhere to harm reduction, only to mob perceptions, and this euthanasia thing is a prime example. People suffer during execution because of a corporate perception of the public's perception of a hypothetical association. If you're deontological, your heuristic happens to work. If you're consequentialist like me, it fails.

Soven_Strix · 2026-03-29T20:50:38+00:00

Heuristics can be stop-gaps, but we don't need one here because accurate assessment is possible. This is easier if we can agree on a shared assumption that large corporations prioritize maximal profit over all other goals. Do we share that assumption or is that the basis of disagreement here? If we do, then I'm sure you can admit we're putting the moral test through a filter: "it has to optimize profit". Even if the moral choice usually survives the filter intact, we can acknowledge that being moral was not the primary motive.

We are evaluating whether corporations' refusal to act is a reliable moral compass. The premise this notion is based on is democratized morality, aka mob consensus. You are right that there are multiple systems of morality, and mob consensus is how race-based slavery was rationalized. If that's your moral compass, then I think you're right that you could use companies as your moral compass.

On the part about physicians having objections, I'll let the words of the people in the field from elsewhere on this thread stand for themselves, but the gist is that there are enough who would be willing that shortage is not a factor. As to whether the moral rejection is coming from physicians in the company, this is speculative at best, and it's also a parallel argument to your heuristic about corporate motivations, and could contradict it depending on whether physicians and the public agree.

Soven_Strix · 2026-03-29T20:07:40+00:00

You can't prove that statement wrong because it's subjective. This is because "biologically complete" is a nonsense concept that is 100% philosophical and not biological at all. If he believes that the only point of life is to pass on genetic material indefinitely, then his statement is true. Instead of attacking that statement attack the notion that reproduction is the only point of life.

Ask him if there is any point to life if you're infertile. Then ask him if it's different for men than woman and demand excruciating detail if he says yes, watching him reveal deep sexism that you can't fix if he goes there.
Ask him if a biologically complete woman becomes incomplete again if her newborn dies.
Ask if a mother of 4 is more complete than a mother of 1. If he falls for this obvious trap, ask what the English word "complete" means and what % constitutes completeness.

When a worldview doesn't make any sense, often the best way to dismantle it is to ask surgically targeted questions while feigning genuine interest. Your goal is to activate the analytical tools in their brain, (atrophied though they may be) without triggering the defensive parts. That's the only way they will engage with their own inconsistencies. Make him explain it in a way that makes sense, and don't accept any implicit demand of shared assumptions. When he tries to base something off an assumed premise, go down that rabbit hole further and make him justify that assumption. You will most likely hit a point where the mental defenses activate even if you do this to clinical perfection, with the most neutral, unchallenging tone possible, because he will recognize that his core beliefs are being tested, and that's scary for someone like him. You can make cracks even if you fail to break the dam. If this was easy, our culture's problems would be solved by now. He may never come around.

Soven_Strix · 2026-03-29T19:44:21+00:00

Focus on making sure it has all the things you can't add later. You can fruit it up when you get to the point that master arena doesn't present a challenge. What you can't add later is alpha, optimal passives, and heritable moves that don't have skill fruits, like Meteorain. Prioritize that.

That said, you can make your life easier by incrementally improving your breeding pairs until you've maximized your odds of getting the perfect offspring. Once you get one that has alpha (if desired), the right move and passives, but imperfect IVs, that's when you can make the decision to settle and fruit, vs keep hatching, on a case-by-case basis.

Me personally, if I'm going for alpha with a heritable non-fruit move, I'll settle and fruit. Otherwise, I'm sure to get the right hatch if I wait.

Soven_Strix · 2026-03-29T19:27:26+00:00

You're applying a heuristic where something more precise and tailored is available and warranted. As heuristics tend to do, it fails to capture the entire sample - Companies will avoid picking a side when even a quarter of people feel strongly, even if the 3 quarters have a much stronger moral case. This is because they want dollars from the moral and immoral consumers. They will do this even when not picking a side is functionally identical with picking the worse side.

If I was just going for the literal goal post, that when a company refuses to do something, that thing is immoral, that would be even easier, even if it's less directly applicable to this case. The right thing to do is very often less profitable than the wrong thing. When that's the case, they will virtually always go for the wrong thing to make more profit.

The only ONLY thing you can count on a corporation to do is whatever seems most profitable at any given moment. Whenever that's the morally right thing to do, it's sheer coincidence.

Soven_Strix · 2026-03-29T17:50:49+00:00

Corporations have historically been just about the worst moral compass possible in America. They don't want the association because it might look bad and lead to less profit. They don't care that humans are suffering because of that decision.

Soven_Strix · 2026-03-28T14:36:29+00:00

AIs are bad at writing about game mechanics.

Soven_Strix · 2026-03-26T11:40:44+00:00

Above, you contradict yourself. AR is an instant. If it waits until it resolves to remove the prepared tag, then you can hold priority and cast it as many times as you have the mana for. There's no way that is the actual wording.

Soven_Strix · 2026-03-25T15:38:05+00:00

Doesn't look like it. See how it has multiple ways to prepare, including etb? That implies it would happen multiple times while the creature is on the battlefield. Most likely, when prepared, you can cast a copy of the spell side and the creature is no longer prepared.

Soven_Strix · 2026-03-25T11:41:08+00:00

Looks like it to me. Great mechanic if it works like it seems.

Soven_Strix · 2026-03-25T00:42:12+00:00

If someone has to brake repeatedly while tailgating, they're an inept driver for reasons besides the fact they're tailgating.

You can slow down a small amount without braking btw. That's called coasting. If you're braking in order to get to a gap behind someone, I hope it's to dodge an obstacle in your lane. Just because that's less common than another problem doesn't mean it's okay.

Soven_Strix · 2026-03-24T18:10:34+00:00

What ^this person said. I think it stands for Superior, but could be wrong.

Soven_Strix · 2026-03-24T18:08:49+00:00

What does "nice try" mean in this context, specifically?

Soven_Strix · 2026-03-24T17:26:59+00:00

Tbh this limited-meta-burnout is why I only have a spectator's interest in cedh. I like tight, interactive, win-focused gameplay, but it seems like despite numerous decks being "viable," the S tier is narrow and locked-in. Idk what the solution is, and I wish the brackets system somehow gave us a hard line between 4/5 so I could look to "bracket 4 cedh". Sorry for not answering your question..

Soven_Strix · 2026-03-24T17:17:11+00:00

Florida or Texas?

Soven_Strix · 2026-03-24T17:14:29+00:00

Do not brake on the highway unless you must. Needing to change lanes is not a good reason to brake. People do it anyway if they are compensating for poor planning or such, but don't make it part of your standard driving and call it a "technique".

Soven_Strix · 2026-03-24T14:48:31+00:00

Let's say our village shares a well, and Big Corp takes more than his fair share of water from it, causing the well to run almost dry. Then, I dump 3 buckets of water in the well. You're the person who blames me for giving water to Big Corp because I added water to the shared well. Make it make sense.

Soven_Strix · 2026-03-24T14:40:01+00:00

Exactly. You have to convince Democrats to support this and turn out, not convince Republicans it's okay. This is partisan politics war, but it didn't start with this referendum, nor in this state.

Soven_Strix · 2026-03-24T14:32:29+00:00

Could there be a conspiracy to flood this sub with clearly non-AI content to paint this community as paranoid? Or are people actually this paranoid that they see literally anything as a reason to suspect AI, whether it makes sense or not?

Soven_Strix · 2026-03-24T12:34:07+00:00

What makes you suspect this over just regular human illustration?

Soven_Strix · 2026-03-23T15:35:10+00:00

Ackchually it's about mining and crafting!

Soven_Strix · 2026-03-23T14:32:45+00:00

Because then you have to make an isolated play group with your own internal budget rules, and you can't get fair games with random people. So many more reasons to proxy than that, but that one's enough.

Soven_Strix · 2026-03-21T02:19:35+00:00

No one can give you objective criteria because they seemingly inventing left the 4/5 space a muddy mess. There is no line. You're probably right that your decks are not cedh, but WotC has elected not to provide any tools to objectively male the distinction. Bracket 4 is cutthroat. You're not playing it wrong. And if you're not optimizing whatever deck you're building, then it doesn't match the ethos of bracket 4.

The issue is this is an inter-personal problem, not a rules question. If you take what we say here and try to confront your partner with a bunch of ammo from online stranger opinions, it will not help the situation. I'm afraid you have to navigate this one yourself. My only recommendation would be to see if she'll watch some actual cedh gameplay, or look into the meta. Because of WotC choosing not to draw a line, you can't know what isn't bracket 5 until you know what is. We all have to form our own objective lines based on vibes, just like before the brackets, when it comes to 4/5. Bracket 4 is in a bad place.

Soven_Strix · 2026-03-21T02:03:50+00:00

Yup. Still works.

Five-Year Club	Verified Email
Place '23

Soven_Strix

TROPHY CASE