Water usage is probably my biggest. Living in a high desert, my wife and MIL see no problem with filling one side of the sink with hot soapy water to wash a few dishes because “that’s just how I’ve always done it”, to watering the grass and plants for hours. All of this makes me mental.
I won’t rape, torture, and murder vulnerable individuals. Call me radical but if I can be happy, healthy, and enjoy life without doing those things to animals, I’m not going to fucking do those things to animals.
Using AI is amoral and I will never use it. As a programmer, every day it feels like I’m increasingly the minority.
You cannot use an unethical mimicry tool in an ethical way. You are asking a theft engine to create for you based on others work.
Fuck copyright
What if you use it to hack the pentagon, end the war, and put out coordinated social media campaigns to enable people younger than 60 to be elected into in congress?
Buddy I am the unethical mimicry tool
I remember when I was a child and I first got experience with computers. I saw how file systems worked and thought to myself “wow I should structure my own mind this way so I can try to think as well as a computer can!”. I may have autism.
AI is the exact opposite. Taking something beautiful, clear, clean, organized, efficient, definitive. And inserting all the messy, sloppy, uncertain, unreproducible aspect of our bloody electric meat brains. It’s a move in the opposite direction of where I think humanity should be going.
don’t give up. you are not alone. patience is key and the time where deep understanding of technology will become essential again
Damned if you do and damned if you don’t. Utilize the tools or you’ll end up unemployed.
In all honesty, I don’t think I could live with myself and, at least currently, think I’d rather find a new career path.
If you ever figure out what the path is let me know cuz any employable skills I have are going to be jobs affected by AI
It ain’t trades because literally everyone is going to do that when AI kills all the other jobs
People should be able to transfer their vote of their first preference didn’t win. Sorry democrats, being forced to vote for you isnt democracy.
Mathematical Problems with Winner-Takes-All Voting Systems.
I’m Dutch; I can vote for 16 different parties or so… None of those represent me well, and the one I’m voting for never wins anywhere close :(
Everyone deserves health care. And a decent place to live. Even people without jobs!
Everyone deserves health care.
Even people who don’t live in your country? Because that’s going to be a strain on your healthcare system.
Yes, yes, it’s a nice ideal, but when the rubber meets the road, shit can hit the fan, which means healthcare for the FIFO, and the rich.
If it’s “everyone in my circle deserves healthcare”, then it’s very realistic. “Everyone in my country” might even work as well. “Everyone in the world deserves healthcare in my country” not so much.
Could be differentiated in basic needs vs national residents rights.
You’d just need to authenticate yourself as being from the country and then you get the usual care.
Foreigners get the basic needs and anything beyond needs to be compensated by themself or their insurance.
Aka: As it’s already done.
I want to share my photos of our trip with you, but I don’t want you to upload them to Google, or apple, or amazon, or meta, or any social media.
If it’s a pic of you, fine, do whatever you want. But please don’t take my whole album and store it in your google photos.
Edit: to maybe disambiguate, I go on a trip with someone else, we both take photos/videos using our own devices, and then afterwards we are exchanging what we took. Not like, me sharing photos with someone who didn’t even go on the trip.
That seems logical.
Seems a bit creepy doing that…
I think it makes total sense from their POV if I’m not posting my shit publicly and they want to be able to view it in the future. I will gladly make a copy of their photos of the trip for my own record, but I will store it in a way that only I have access.
People who believe in any religion are the same as dormant terrorist cells. One can have perfectly formal relationships with them on a daily basis, but given the right conditions, they become a huge, possibly lethal, risk.
Agreed. The amount of down votes you’re receiving shows that, even on lemmy, >25% of users have an immediate and ingrained distaste to others sharing the thought that religion can be dangerous. The religious hold their own religion in such high regards, not realizing that, for the most part, they were never given a choice of which religion, let alone the choice to not be religious at all.
“With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion” - Steven Weinberg
I wonder how many of the people who downvote me have people in their family who will be sent to die in Iran for the lunacy of a bunch of Christians excited for Armageddon.
consider antivaxxer parents that stick with their beliefs despite their children who died of easily preventable diseases to find your answers.
That really happens there? My god. Well, after all priests come in many different uniforms. Sometimes even sounding like a screeching cabinet like RFK Jr.
That really happens there? My god.
some part of me wants to live in your world for this; i assumed that everyone knew that this was the case since it’s on cnn/bbc/al jazeera/rt/etc.
I mean, I have a bed sofa. Dunno about refugee status, but this is some Carrie’s mom-level stuff.
Suits are weird, they feel old and out dated, like cosplaying a 20th century business boy in grandpa’s pajamas. Multiple layered long sleeve shirt, jacket, and trousers doesn’t make sense for the majority of weather in most cities or even more if you’re inside temp controlled buildings more often. In the winter you want something heavier like denim or fleece lined or water resistant, and in the summer you want breathable fabric, wicking, single layer, shorts, etc. Overcoats don’t need backup jackets, and some of the people who did wear it like a uniform last century weren’t people you’d want to emulate.
If you want to be a member of Busines Suit Club you have to wear a suit. Membership has some benefits but the downside is less personal comfort.
Neil Postman was right.
Our educational models and methods are changing for the worse.
TV and the internet are terrible mediums for public or political discourse and this has exacerbated many of our existing issues.
Our culture has become more shallow and has started to lack something profound because of how we utilize technology for education, business, and entertainment.
Things will not improve until we change our relationship with these technologies.
EDIT: several words.
French cuisine is extremely overrated
Sacré Bleu!!!
To secure your stuff. Hacking and social engineering are both easier than you think and identity theft is devastating. I know most people here already know that, but having worked in tech support, it’s unbelievably common to skip even the basics, not to mention my grandparents who think I’m just paranoid.
Even if you are paranoid it can happen to you
Sadly, paying attention isn’t always enough…
Right, it could happen to anyone, but it’s still possible to lower the chance of that happening, or at least limit the damage when it does happen.
Yup
Religious people are one the biggest reasons as to why we are where we are today. Anyone that tries to “respect” these delusions are also culpable. It’s the best invention to sedate the masses in their cage since sliced manna.
I bet you cannot even define religion.
“Existential belief/claim in delusion with no evidence or basis in reality; A tool for the rich to exploit and sedate the masses.” That’s what I hope to change the definition to when people wake up. Obviously since definitions are descriptive and not prescriptive that isn’t what it is now. “An organized supernatural belief in a god/gods in regard to the creation of the universe.” Is what I would assume more fits how people use the word today. Even then I feel that excludes delusions such as Buddhism or individual ‘spiritual’ delusions.
Skip to your proselytizing, what delusion are you Pascal’s wagering your life on?
Right, everyone who disagrees with you is a delusional sky-fairy worshipper. I’m not religious, dude. I’m also not suffering from religious trauma. Clean your shit up.
Clearly you CANNOT define what religion even is. But boy do you ever have strong opinions about something YOU CANNOT EVEN DEFINE. Your damage is just flowing out from every sentence. Your rage cannot change the world, but once you fix yourself, you can start to try.
You are illiterate and I hope you get better 😘
How do you explain to yourself that religious and spiritual people are the drivers of mainstream politics and new political ideologies, while atheists/modernists/disenchanted are pretty much either irrelevant or clinging desperately to their position of vaning power, paralyzed, and often depressed?
As another comment said this is a fallacy. This detracts from my original argument, and assumes I stated any of this in my main point. If you have questions about the argument ask questions about the direct things I said in my argument. Not shit I did not say an inkling about. Your making assumptions on positions I do not have.
Let me bite for the sake of biting.
Now if I take your loaded question as a claim, I would like a source for the hasty generalization “atheists/modernists/disenchanted are pretty much either irrelevant or clinging desperately to their position of vaning power, paralyzed, and often depressed” Part. Show me the stats.
“Religious and spiritual people are the drivers of mainstream politics and new political ideologies” That is sooo rich. Religious people have been at the front lines of halting progress across the spectrum. I guess you are right they are the drivers of mainstream political change, not good political change might I add. Whenever they do change for the good it’s because real progressives fought tooth and nail to change it on a state level. Only then do these churches catch up, and even then you have members that don’t agree/believe in the change. Some key examples of movements religions have been heinous on: Woman’s suffrage, Slavery Abolitionism, Abortion, LGBTQIA+ rights, Gaza, Access contraception/sex education, the list goes fucking on and on. Don’t even get me started on the dark money organized religions put in to get vile legislation passed.
I’m not trying to assume anything but the way you throw depression in the mix puts a bad taste in my mouth. Like it has anything to do with the other things you stated, religious people are depressed too. It isn’t secularist exclusive. The way religion handles depression is “deal with it god knew you could handle it”, “that’s not depression it’s the devil”, or even the more extreme “depression/suicide is a sin”. So if depressed religious people aren’t coming out and talking about their mental health all to often compared to atheists it doesn’t surprise me. I’ll give you a chance to correct the record and we can move on, as I do not want to detract from our argument.
Religions allow for people to discriminate just on the premise of “well it’s what I believe”. They think because it’s their belief it doesn’t have to be demonstrated or tested. Why is your religion/belief true? “Because my ancient text of choice says it’s true” ok well why is your religious text of choice true? “Because my religion/belief says it’s true”.
happy to be presented with counterevidence
This is an argument from ignorance
logical fallacies are out of context when used in a normal conversation rather than a scientific debate. It’s just a way to escape and kill the conversation.
The Sound of Music is not a Christmas movie.
My wife and her family and a whole bunch of Canadians all think it is and I am so flummoxed by it.
I love that movie but it’s the first time I’m hearing it being referred to as a Christmas movie. Iirc there isn’t even any Christmas celebration in it?
no!! It takes place around the Salzburg festival which is in…July I think?
I’ll stand over here on my hill and say that Return to Oz IS a Christmas movie.
I haven’t seen it! What makes it a Christmas movie?
I like the theory that the fellowship of the ring is a Christmas movie because if you read the books, they use a Gregorian calendar and if you add up travel time etc, apparently you can prove that the fellowship left Rivendell on December 25!
Is the first Rambo movie a Christmas movie?
Just in response to your annoyance, I have found women ive been around tend to have more of a “fuck other people and the climate” attitude than most of the guys (its usually not that abrasive, just more of a “why wouldn’t I water my grass? We have the water” attitude). Especially if there’s kids, they dont care about anything else (that’s just biology I guess). Please dont take this as sexist, it is just something ive observed.
I get very annoyed with people wasting unnessesarily and using amazon.
my favorite is the ‘love to travel’ types. point out that their trips to antarctic are toxic for the environment there and they lose it on you. because cute pics with penguins are worth it!
Yeah that is unfortunate. I like traveling too but usually drive. No matter what you do travelling is bad for climate.
What really pisses me off is asshole tourists who litter or otherwise make nature unenjoyable (massive douche hiking while blaring annoying music out of a Bluetooth pill)
Then again billionaires fly their jets to work every day and burn up millions of kwh daily for their 5 properties they own. So I think we can have a couple travel vacations a year.
I’m curious as to where you live (city, suburb, etc) and what the age group of the people are
The most average. Middle america, 30s to 50s age.
Fuck AI.
The abortion debate will never be resolved.
This is mainly from the two sides arguing about different things.
Pro-life is about how a life starts at conception which means that abortion is murder. Pro-choice is about how women should have a choice to have an abortion.
Pro choice is about choice
Pro life isn’t about life as they’ve never cared about any of that shit. That baby is born? Toss it in a dumpster as far as they care.
Pro life is about control and power, I’m willing to.doe on that hill a hundred times
Most pro-lifers aren’t even personally in it for the power, they’re just brainwashed by people who are.
Case and point.
You don’t actually expect me to believe that you think all Pro-life people believe that children don’t deserve a good home. Sure there might be some people out there like that. But it’s much more likely that the majority of people do actually care.
It is not even that their priorities are wrong or conflicting. I hope you can agree that being murdered is worse than those children having a bad childhood.
Please note that I am not taking either a pro-life or pro-choice position. My position is that until one side can actually understand the other the debate will never go anywhere.
If withholding lifesaving care is murder, everyone who hasn’t donated a kidney is a murderer. Everyone who didn’t donate blood this month is a murderer. Everyone who isn’t an organ donor is a murderer.
No one getting an abortion is a murderer, they’re just not agreeing to share all of their organs with another person for almost a year.
So yeah, I just don’t understand their position. They don’t call withholding medical care by sharing organs murder in any other context.
I posted this to another commenter but feel it also applies here.
I think you have lost what my original argument was about. I am asserting that the abortion debate will never end due to each side arguing about disparate things.
From what I understand, there are 3 primary ways that a debate can end; each side comes to an agreement about what is correct/what should be done, each side agrees that they will not be able to agree on what is correct, or one side decides they are unable to change the opinion of the other side.
Much of your posts discusses how one side (Pro-life) is incorrect. This does not touch on my central argument. If you proposed a situation in which one of the three outcomes could occur then that would disprove my belief.
You don’t actually expect me to believe that you think all Pro-life people believe that children don’t deserve a good home. Sure there might be some people out there like that. But it’s much more likely that the majority of people do actually care.
Instead of appealing to your own incredulity, perhaps you could just look at the other actions of the people involved. If the people claiming to be Pro Life to prevent child murder, they would take actions to prevent that outcome through comprehensive sex education and contraceptive availability. Most of them don’t. They would also not vote to annihilate social safety nets for children once they are born. Most of them do. Taking those into account suggests that child welfare is not the only or even the dominant goal of the movement.
If your entire argument is that there exists some pro life people who care about these things then sure, you “win” that’s not relevant to the overall situation. The dominant views and actions of the pro life movement in the US stem from a concerted effort to create a political wedge and to create captive single-issue voters. It worked.
The US is not unique here in its diversity of views. All across the world people (even pro-choice people) don’t “like” abortion. There is no preference for it. It is for most people a (very) necessary evil. But most western countries have managed to deal with the the abortion issue in a healthier and effective way that is more aligned with the stated goals of the pro life movement than what the actual pro life movement has managed in the US.
Acting like this is some free, open ethical debate devoid of political manipulation between people trying to save children and people trying to maintain women’s bodily autonomy is hopelessly naive.
I’m not sure what exactly you are saying I am being incredulous about. You’ve brought up a lot of points here let me try to respond to each of them.
But, before I do that, I think you have lost what my original argument was about. I am asserting that the abortion debate will never end due to each side arguing about disparate things.
From what I understand, there are 3 primary ways that a debate can end; each side comes to an agreement about what is correct/what should be done, each side agrees that they will not be able to agree on what is correct, or one side decides they are unable to change the opinion of the other side.
Much of your posts discusses how one side (Pro-life) is incorrect. This does not touch on my central argument. If you proposed a situation in which one of the three outcomes could occur then that would disprove my belief.
You talk about education and how if Pro-life proponents actually cared about reducing abortions then they would fight for “real” education, not abstinence only. But this ignores one of their central beliefs; that abstinence only is the best education to reduce abortions.
Next you talk about dismantling social safety nets. From looking at a few Pro-life groups many of them do not really talk about changing social services for kids at all. The ones that do talk about increasing education, providing counseling, and promoting adoption as an option. I think what the misunderstanding might be is that many people who are Pro-life are also republican who also believe in a reduction of government social services in favor of private services. This assignment of belief is not transferable. What I mean by this is that being Pro-life does not necessarily equate to wanting to dismantle social safety nets.
You are right that child welfare is not the central part of their belief set. The central part is “life begins at conception. And ending a life is murder”. Take for instance a hypothetical attorney general who focuses mode attention on petty shoplifting rather than murderers. I would hope that you would agree that they do not have the people’s best interest at heart. This is how Pro-life proponents see this debate.
Last thing that you mentioned that I want to comment on is about single-issue voters. Of course I would encourage people to be aware about all the issues that affect them. But I do not agree with the demonization of single-issue voters. There is a reason why on a ballot you are not required to fill in every question or there might be an option for obtaining. If we were to legislate against people being single-issue voters then that might quickly devolve into a facsimile of literacy tests. Tests which have already been ruled as unconstitutional.
But, before I do that, I think you have lost what my original argument was about. I am asserting that the abortion debate will never end due to each side arguing about disparate things.
Since you’re apparently lost, I’ll make I’ll summarize - the two sides talking past each other is how this issue was engineered. This is a manufactured debate designed for political purposes, and not for the welfare of kids. There’s a reason this nonsense took hold in the US and nowhere else in the western world.
But this ignores one of their central beliefs; that abstinence only is the best education to reduce abortions.
They absolutely don’t believe that lol. They believe it is the only acceptable option (even it demonstrably doesn’t work).
Next you talk about dismantling social safety nets. From looking at a few Pro-life groups many of them do not really talk about changing social services for kids at all. The ones that do talk about increasing education, providing counseling, and promoting adoption as an option. I think what the misunderstanding might be is that many people who are Pro-life are also republican who also believe in a reduction of government social services in favor of private services. This assignment of belief is not transferable. What I mean by this is that being Pro-life does not necessarily equate to wanting to dismantle social safety nets.
I simply don’t understand why you insist on taking what everyone says at face value while ignoring their actual actions - how they vote.
Last thing that you mentioned that I want to comment on is about single-issue voters. Of course I would encourage people to be aware about all the issues that affect them. But I do not agree with the demonization of single-issue voters.
I’m not demonizing them lol. I’m calling them stupid. If you’re a single issue voter, you are completely captive. The guy who embodies your one key issue can do anything else they want because they know they have you. Single issue voters always end up being suckers in there end.
You are more talking about how this debate came to be. My central argument is more about how the debate cannot end.
I am not sure how abstinence only being the only acceptable option is any better than it being the best option. If anything it just strengthens my argument by showing that the Pro-life side will not accept any other form of education. And the Pro-choice side will also not accept any other form of education. This topic is a nonsequiter for both sides.
Again being Pro-life does not necessarily mean that they will vote for dismantling social services.
I simply don’t understand why you insist on assuming that they are lying.
Demonize: to portray (someone or something) as evil or as worthy of contempt or blame.
Is that not what you are doing? You are blaming them for voting how they do.
Ultimately I think we have reached that 3rd situation. I have decided that nothing I say is going to change your mind on this and am choosing to walk away.
I am not sure how abstinence only being the only acceptable option is any better than it being the best option.
The distinction is important because perpetuating their only acceptable option despite it being demonstrably ineffective indicates that child welfare is not the primacy concern in play.
Again being Pro-life does not necessarily mean that they will vote for dismantling social services.
And yet, despite it not being necessarily true it is absolutely true in every practical sense in reality.
I simply don’t understand why you insist on assuming that they are lying.
I simply don’t understand why you insist on taking political talking points as 100 percent sincere instead of looking at the tangible actions being taken in this space.
Is that not what you are doing? You are blaming them for voting how they do.
You don’t even know what to do with this definition after quoting it. If course I “blame” them for voting how they do. Is assigning someone responsibility for their actions “demonizing” them? Lol. You’re lost in the sauce bruh.
Ultimately I think we have reached that 3rd situation. I have decided that nothing I say is going to change your mind on this and am choosing to walk away.
Other countries are able to have this discussion in far more healthy and productive ways. Instead of being content with your one insight that prolife and pro-choice are talking past each other, I suggest you ask yourself why that is, and why this positioning of the discussion is basically unique to the US. There’s a whole wide world out there.
Just force women to have abortions. Now you are undermining their bodily autonomy AND killing babies for satan (or whatever) Both sides happy.
/joke
The debate will probably go somewhere if people took a moment to think about why murder is bad and why choice is important, then consider why that would or wouldn’t apply to this specific scenario.
I don’t think that will happen given the strongly held beliefs each side has as well as the polarization in this country.
It also does not help that there are politicians and news organizations out there that are happy to throw more fuel on the fire, driving a wedge deeper between two groups.
I believe a woman should have the right to abort the child as long as its under 18*12 months.
/s
Hasn’t it already been resolved in a whole bunch of countries? I mean, sure there’s still some folks that disagree with the outcome, but you’ve got folks disagreeing about the earth being round as well. If that’s your bar for debates not having been resolved then I agree with you, but I’d also say you’re not saying anything particularly interesting, disagreeable, or controversial.
You are right. I didn’t specify in my original comment but I am more referencing the polarization in the US specifically.
But everything you’re saying in the other posts is pretty generic and applies to the pro and anti abortion crowd in the other countries as well.
