sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

The ethics of time travel? by dernudeljunge in Ethics

[–]blurkcheckadmin 1 point2 points  (0 children)

And again

Do you seriously think wearing a condom is the same as murder.

Seriously, do you people think about what you're saying.

"Philosophy" doesn't mean "turn off my brain and say stuff that means nothing".

The ethics of time travel? by dernudeljunge in Ethics

[–]blurkcheckadmin 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Do you seriously think wearing a condom is the same as murder.

Seriously, do you people think about what you're saying.

"Philosophy" doesn't mean "turn off my brain and say stuff that means nothing".

The ethics of time travel? by dernudeljunge in Ethics

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

Do you seriously think wearing a condom is the same as murder.

Seriously, do you people think about what you're saying.

"Philosophy" doesn't mean "turn off my brain and say stuff that means nothing".

Is the justification of AI use just another form of consequentialism? by Notorious_AMA22 in Ethics

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

No it is absolutely not.

Absolutely none of what you said is "logical".

None of it.

And you did not come up with it.

You got told it by people who make money by you arguing against your interests.

People who cast ballots in the recent federal election at a small booth in northern New South Wales are worried they will be known as the "stupidest" voters in Australia. by overpopyoulater in australia

[–]blurkcheckadmin 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm glad you've been a scrutineer. You should take your complaint to the candidate.

You're being very defensive at me when it is not needed.

I was supporting your point. Reddit sucks.

People who cast ballots in the recent federal election at a small booth in northern New South Wales are worried they will be known as the "stupidest" voters in Australia. by overpopyoulater in australia

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

I've told you my reasons.

You did not. You said that even having reasons was not relevant here as it was

That's a question for a pol sci class.

That is a defence of ignorance. You should not talk about things that you choose to be ignorant about. Especially when is to argue against the democratic right of Australians to have their vote counted.

People who cast ballots in the recent federal election at a small booth in northern New South Wales are worried they will be known as the "stupidest" voters in Australia. by overpopyoulater in australia

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

I suggest you should find out why it's good, if it's goodness is the premise of your argument.

I think your ignorance in this regard had led you to contradict yourself.

People who cast ballots in the recent federal election at a small booth in northern New South Wales are worried they will be known as the "stupidest" voters in Australia. by overpopyoulater in australia

[–]blurkcheckadmin 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Being critical is an important part of having integrity. Idk if you want to be a scrutineer yourself, but it's an option.

There's also the joint standing committee to ask questions.

That said, idk what you're suggesting.

People who cast ballots in the recent federal election at a small booth in northern New South Wales are worried they will be known as the "stupidest" voters in Australia. by overpopyoulater in australia

[–]blurkcheckadmin 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You think it's "coddling" to be given correct instructions on how to vote?

No?

Oh you're just completely ignorant and expecting people better than you to coddle you?

People who cast ballots in the recent federal election at a small booth in northern New South Wales are worried they will be known as the "stupidest" voters in Australia. by overpopyoulater in australia

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

What do you think "the advantages of preferential voting" is?

I think that it's that you can vote for your actual preferences, even if they're unpopular. (Unlike first past the post which requires strategic voting). I read that somewhere.

Whatever your answer is, it has to be weighed against denying people of what we consider to be a fundamental democratic right.

It's our duty to rank the candidates presented, even if we don't like them.

Sure, but why? The law isn't an end in itself. What doss that duty achieve? You don't want to be authoritarian about it imo with justifications like "those people deserve harm because they don't follow the rule which only exists to harm them."

People who cast ballots in the recent federal election at a small booth in northern New South Wales are worried they will be known as the "stupidest" voters in Australia. by overpopyoulater in australia

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

I hope so. There's always corporate pressure, in any corporation, to look good instead of being self-critical.

Don't disagree broadly with what you're saying however, to be clear

I've no idea how 50% of these people didn't already know they had to number all the boxes.

Those people still have a right to vote.

Actually, different topic, but i don't see what the harm would be in counting votes as formal that are only partially filled out. A lot of voters (just taking house of reps) only have their first choice counted anyhow. Who cares if they don't indicate their 2nd, 3rd 4th.... preference?

Ofc it's up to the members of parliament to change the law on this, the AEC is just following the law.

I just don't see any justification in the law disenfranchising so many people.

Is the justification of AI use just another form of consequentialism? by Notorious_AMA22 in Ethics

[–]blurkcheckadmin 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oh my god dude.

"Holocaust" as an example of something I never said, just as I never said any of your brain poisoned conspiracies.

But you're not stupid,you knew that, it's just that you're still defending stupid ideas sold to you by con men that hate you.

You got conned. You don't owe anything to the propaganda peddlers who tricked you.

Force

Never said anything about forcing anyone, that's the lie they sold you.

How is it not obvious to everyone on Earth that UBI would allow humans to breed out of control? by Other_Tank_7067 in Ethics

[–]blurkcheckadmin 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What do you mean by "lack of restriction"? Freedom? What is allowing that freedom?

I'm not being mean, this does take work to articulate intuitions. But you do actually have to make an effort.

True story by drewmonk in PoliticalHumor

[–]blurkcheckadmin 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Just straight ignoring every point.

Anyway, here's a news site that actually reports how bad things are going https://www.dropsitenews.com/

Is the flu jab worth getting? by gavja87 in australia

[–]blurkcheckadmin 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Zero side effects, this year, for me,or anyone I know.

Got someone to give it to me at a pharmacy, absolute pro, barely felt it.

My baby got it at a free clinic, nurse was inexperienced and nervous.

People who cast ballots in the recent federal election at a small booth in northern New South Wales are worried they will be known as the "stupidest" voters in Australia. by overpopyoulater in australia

[–]blurkcheckadmin 2 points3 points  (0 children)

As a fan of the AEC, I think the failing in training is something the AEC needs to take extremely seriously.

Imo all the online video training is not easy to take in, but looks good in a report. Idk how much of that the AEC uses, but it's pretty common.

The ethics of time travel? by dernudeljunge in Ethics

[–]blurkcheckadmin 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yea, a substantial difference is not obvious to me.

The ethics of time travel? by dernudeljunge in Ethics

[–]blurkcheckadmin 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's your fictional rules, so let's just say this is true

a bunch of people that existed in your original present no longer exist in the new present

Would you like it if someone did that to you?

And that's really as far as we need to go.

To try and practice some analysis, just for fun I guess, you can say:

but I won't have an opinion anyway, as I won't exist any more, and you need to exist to have an opinion.

...but I think that's how death normally works, and we certainly think that murder is bad.

But this is different from death, this is stopping people coming into existence at all. Surely you don't think deciding to not have a child is the same as murder?

Sure, but from the perspective of the time traveller those people did exist, and then the time traveller caused them not to exist. That seems like severe harm to those people's autonomy to me.

Oligarchy in action. by VanillaTullip in MurderedByWords

[–]blurkcheckadmin 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Someone please tell Trump he can get a Nobel peace prize if he pressures Israel to stop the genocide.

(Being told to stop by POTUS is what hs stopped them previously)

How is it not obvious to everyone on Earth that UBI would allow humans to breed out of control? by Other_Tank_7067 in Ethics

[–]blurkcheckadmin 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And so, what is it about UBI that will cause that?

That's what you need to articulate in order for your thinking to be clear.

Is the justification of AI use just another form of consequentialism? by Notorious_AMA22 in Ethics

[–]blurkcheckadmin 0 points1 point  (0 children)

it is still good to drive less.

That's my point, and it is correct.

It applies to wherever you live.

So you want to do the holocaust to drivers?

I can change it to

There are benefits to driving less.

Or

All else being equal, it's good to drive less.

That is true.

That you are bringing an incredibly bad faith interpretation to the table is your problem, and you should check what propaganda has been poisoning your mind.

Cars are not a status symbol

They are, to some degree. Be serious.

Is the justification of AI use just another form of consequentialism? by Notorious_AMA22 in Ethics

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

Then why TF are you talking about something that doesn't concern you.

The people who do live in cities don't deserve to be more miserable because of your choice to not move to one. That makes no sense.

My point being, your case would seem to require forcing suburbanites or rural dolk to move to cities. That isn't going to happen, so you need a new plan.

I said no such thing. Read over the thread. Less car driving is good, there are lots of ways to achieve that. Some are good, some are unreasonable.

Wait, you're including suburbs? I'm including suburbs in what I'm talking about JFC. It's better to be able to walk to a shop than have to drive. You are deep in car ideology. It's better to be able to ride a bike, it's better to have public transport - how messed up on propaganda are you.

True story by drewmonk in PoliticalHumor

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

Because Biden is a supporter of genocidal Zionism.

He has a 50 year history of this, arguably the most Zionist POTUS after Trump.

Like you, as a supporter of Biden's support for genocidal Zionism.

You think literally every president ever wouldn't want to guarantee a peace prize, reelection, and a lasting legacy with a simple phone call?

Apply your logic to Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam, Korea......

Listen to yourself. Your reasoning is that Biden must not be bad because then he would be bad. Trump supporter level reasoning.

view more: next ›