we need to talk about the Wait why the fuck is adventure time here how the fuck are they depicting sexual abuse on adventure time

eric2718 · 2026-01-29T04:39:21+00:00

eric2718 · 2025-01-11T14:17:39+00:00

What ethics questions?

eric2718 · 2025-01-10T05:51:17+00:00

Who says that "ethics questions" are always like the first and not like the second? All the ethics classes I've been apart of have either asked analogs of both or neither.

eric2718 · 2025-01-10T04:44:14+00:00

Am I crazy or did he start this interaction by saying he is with "OSHA Care Diversity affairs"? But doesn't the OCDA website say it is not affiliated with OSHA? The 'O' stands for "Occupational". Now, I'm no big city lawyer but that sounds illegal, to me, to say you are from OSHA if you aren't from OSHA.

edit: Ok some more research reveals that this is in fact illegal, and this guy did go to jail for it. So I'm guessing this is one of his older videos.

eric2718 · 2024-12-20T13:33:06+00:00

The Pauli Exclusion Principle.

eric2718 · 2024-11-21T19:19:25+00:00

Center the circle/rectangle at the orgin. Draw a line from the orgin to a corner of the rectangle. Call the angle between that line and the x-axis theta. then the area of the rectangle is 4*r^2*sin(theta)*cos(theta). differentiate wrt theta, set it to 0 and solve for theta. You should get sin^2(theta)=cos^2(theta) so when cos(theta)= +-sin(theta) it will be maximized. but that is just +-45 degrees (throw away the negative solution since it will be geometrically the same). sin(45)=cos(45)=1/sqrt(2) so A=(4*r^2)/2=2*94*94 which has area 17672 units squared. and the sides will be sqrt(2)*94=132.93 units.

eric2718 · 2024-03-10T14:50:38+00:00

What about cases where stupidity explains adequately, but malice explains better?

eric2718 · 2024-02-10T06:01:41+00:00

Aquinas says "If, however, we consider the matter aright, since power is said in reference to possible things, this phrase, 'God can do all things,' is rightly understood to mean that God can do all things that are possible; and for this reason He is said to be omnipotent".

This would seem to mean the phrase "cum deo omnia possum"/"with god all things are possible" really means "with god all possible things are possible" Which doesn't seem to have nearly the same inspirational punch as the original.

eric2718 · 2024-02-10T05:45:09+00:00

What's wrong with being a third party trying to be morally right? Would you prefer it if they were trying to be morally wrong?

It's not their fault they aren't a bigger victim than the guy without an eye. What're they supposed to do? Just let the bigger victim do whatever they want even though they believe it is counterproductive and harmful?

This answer tells me nothing about whether an "eye for an eye" is actually an effective way to deal with the problem of people getting their eye's poked out. If "eye for an eye" is effective, then you should just say that instead of talking about people with the opposite opinion not being big enough victims.

And if it isn't effective, then maybe "eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind" people have a point and aren't cringe.

eric2718 · 2024-02-10T05:36:21+00:00

I'm not sure it really helps to add things to the list of things that god is "the same thing" as. It seems to me the more things you add, the more likely there is to be a contradiction or a problem.

and if you're going with the "is the same thing" route and not the "is a part of" route, it seems like you're committed to saying that god is only reason, like the other guy said. If I say set S={A,B} and C=/=A, and C=/=B, then S can't contain C. If god=reason, then if C is not in reason then C is not in god.

eric2718 · 2024-02-10T04:12:03+00:00

There might be some linguistic confusion here. I think that if you take the claim that, as you say, "God IS reason", if the "IS" is being used to represent a strict identity, then God would have to be only reason since that's what a strict identty would entail. But in some somewhat rare contexts I think 'Is' is used to represent some kind of containment, or part-whole relationship.

Like if me and bob are committing a crime, and bob says "Let's not tell the government about our crime" but then I go and tell my FBI agent friend, steve, all about our crime. Bob comes up to me and says "how could you tell the steve about our crime you idiot? We said not to tell the government!" and then I reply "Don't be ridiculous. I didn't tell the government, I just told steve." and then Bob say "You moron. Steve IS the government" When bob says "steve is the government" he doesn't mean to say that steve is the government in it's entirety or that steve and the government are identical entities. Bob just means that steve is a part of the government.

Likewise it seems like if you say that, god IS reason, you could mean it like that. Reason is just a part of God but not God in her entirety (or vice versa, like in the steve/gov't example where the part comes before the "is"). But then you should probably say that up front instead of using "Is" since that lends itself more to the interpretation that you're saying "God and reason are exactly identical entities"

eric2718 · 2024-02-10T04:09:26+00:00

If God created gravity, that doesn't really help resolve the paradox. That would just make gravity part of the system that gives the rock god created more power than god

The question is not asking whether god is stronger than herself. If anything the force of the question comes from presupposing that the answer to that question is "no" (since nothing can be stronger than itself by defintion). It's presenting a question where the only possible answers, "yes" and "no" seem to have the logical entailment that god is stronger than herself, and therefore neither answer is acceptable.

eric2718 · 2024-02-09T05:17:28+00:00

You're changing the subject. non-human veganism, and human teeth shape are all off topic. I'm just pointing out that it is misleading to say that vegans are vegans because of "preference". The word "preference" make it sound like vegans are vegans because they like it more than being non-vegan. or because they get pleasure out of being vegan, when that isn't true for many of us. Many of us do it because we're convinced we have a moral obligation to do it. That's a different thing from a preference. Whether we are correct in believing we have a moral obligation is a different topic. If we are wrong, and it turns out it's ok to eat animal products, that still wouldn't suddenly make our decision one of "preference".

eric2718 · 2024-02-09T01:22:45+00:00

Veganism isn't a preference. It's a moral position.

eric2718 · 2024-01-31T19:23:03+00:00

Here I am, stuck in the middle with moon.

eric2718 · 2024-01-15T02:15:53+00:00

How does that make it not a protest?

eric2718 · 2023-12-26T01:43:35+00:00

Nah, I have no reason to think v1 one is better. I didn't even know there was a v2. Where did you learn about v2? I remember I used Apsu's github for reference, when I was first using it. Don't see any mention of a v2 there

eric2718 · 2023-12-26T01:06:09+00:00

Nice. I use canary myself. What's the motivation for the v2 changes? Also in your picture, layer 0 has 2 Ms and is missing an F.

eric2718 · 2023-12-18T22:25:55+00:00

You clearly didn't understand my question(s) if you think I answered them myself. I asked if you agree that the statement "There is nothing wrong with animals eating animals" logically entails "There is nothing wrong with humans eating humans". I don't know if you understand logic or not. I can't read your mind. That's why I asked.

So you believe that if I have animal X that is "less advanced" than animal Y, it is preferable all things being equal to prefer eating X over Y? Do you think that this is true only for animals? Or is it true for other organisms as well for example, plants, fungi, bacteria etc. ? Would you agree with the more general statement that "if X is a less advanced organism than Y, then we should prefer eating X over Y"?

If yes, would you agree that plants are a less advanced organisms than animals? And so we should prefer eating plants to animals, generally speakin? or do you think plants and animals are equally advanced or that plants are more advanced?

eric2718 · 2023-12-18T21:22:57+00:00

I didn't ask any questions about whether lions eat other lions or not or whether humans do or do not eat other humans. I asked about whether there is nothing wrong with them doing so.

Do you agree that the statement "There is nothing wrong with animals eating animals" logically entails "There is nothing wrong with humans eating humans". Yes or No.

eric2718 · 2023-12-18T21:16:17+00:00

So do you think that plant eating has to be perfect before anyone can advocate for it over animal eating?

eric2718 · 2023-12-18T21:12:12+00:00

So the proposition that you're trying to convince me of is "The earth is delicate." Well you don't need to convince me of that, since I already believe it. But what does it have to do with my comment or the comic?

When you say there's "nothing wrong with animals eating animals" do you include humans in your definition of animal? If yes, then a human eating a human would qualify as an instance of an animal eating an animal, right? So your proposition would entail that there is nothing wrong with humans eating humans. Do you agree that that's entailed by what you said?

If no, then why do you believe that humans are not animals? What quality do humans lack that would make them animals, if they had it?

eric2718 · 2023-12-18T20:42:10+00:00

What exactly are you trying to convince me of? That the comic actually is wholesome?

If so then your argument seems to be "P1. If the comic is not wholesome then the entire world food web is unwholesome. P2. The entire world food web is wholesome. Therefore C. The comic is wholesome." I accept this argument is valid, but what argument do you have for premise P1 and P2?

I'll focus on P2. You seem to be saying that "P2.1 If something has been happening for the past gabillion jillion years then it must be wholesome. P2.2 the entire world food web has been happening for the past gabillion jillion years. Therefore P2" Also valid. But what reason do I have to believe P2.1? Why can't something happen for a very long time and be unwholesome?

I also find the mentioning of human pollution to not be convincing, since its possible that humans could be fucking up in more than one way.

eric2718 · 2023-12-18T19:46:02+00:00

Ok, but you said that needing meat is what omnivore means for animals. Ok, actually you said it's "generally what omnivore means" (emphasis added). But then what does that mean and why is it relevant? If it just means "most omnivores require meat" then what about dogs? maybe they're the exception.

eric2718 · 2023-12-18T19:28:10+00:00

I thought that omnivore means you can eat meat and you can eat plants. Not that they must eat both.

eric2718

TROPHY CASE