The thing about all these conspiracy theories about false flag killings, is why would you choose such an incredibly risky way, where the target could just as easily be accidentally killed if you get the windage wrong?

The reality is that is vastly more likely that they were trying to kill ICE employees, but since they were blindly firing at a van, they only hit detainees.

Or get shot to death, when an anti-ICE activist fires on your transport.

Israel was going for a death toll, they said it explicitly themselves.

AI “errors” had nothing to do with the outcome in Gaza. The IDF would have used another sloppier metric for targeting, they flat out don’t care as long as they still get money and US troops defending them.

Your solution is worse.

As is, it is the responsibility of the content provider to make sure that they are distributing only to people who are legally allowed to have it.

With age-verification the user has to prove that they are allowed to access the content, then the site can distribute it to them.

Your approach is to distribute the content by default and only deny it to ChildDevices. In order for this to work at all, you have to mandate that children can only use ChildDevices. This is soooo much worse than simply requiring that adults who want to see certain content have to prove that they can legally access it. If adults have reservations about providing ID for pornography, the loss of such content seems to be much less than denying children Internet access. (Although, I’m sure that Lemmings would disagree for obvious reasons).

But that’s not socialism, is it?

Also you can try to argue that some methods of welfare distribution are inefficient, but you can’t argue that the needs are being ignored.

But did Jesus proscribe government welfare programs? It seems to be that the basis for “Jesus was a socialist”, is based on his teachings on charity. But this can be done by personal charity, and infact those are the examples he gave. Nowhere in the Bible does it say “you should vote for needs-based welfare programs”.

The obvious response to this is “companions in guilt”. It’s a meta ethics argument that essentially points out that moral reasoning is no different than other types of reasoning. There is no need for “genetic memory”, when like logic it’s simply a consequence of how human minds are structured.

Bad faith argumentation has nothing to do with honestly presenting your views. I can defend positions I don’t actually hold just fine, an argument doesn’t gain any special properties depending on who makes it. I could even claim that I held these beliefs and it would have no effect. Rather, bad faith argumentation has to do with how you engage with your opponents arguments, not your own. An example of bad faith would be if your opponent said that they liked Germany, and you then spun it into portraying them as a Nazi.

Later generations have more time to prepare for retirement, rather than simply axing the benefits of the people that have already retired.

This attitude is why you’re still a moron.

When you encounter a lengthy description of why something is true or false, your response is “OMG so many words!”

Guess what buddy? Life isn’t about punchy one-liners and vapid analysis.

“the past 30 days”

So you literally don’t know how drug tests work? Marijuana clears an oral test in about a day, most jobs that test for it simply tell you to come back the next day. This is in legal state, and covers the vast majority of jobs. If you can’t be sober for a full 24-hrs before a pre-employment check you’re an addict. This would be like if someone admitted to being drunk the morning of an interview.

“Neither of those details speaks to sobriety at work”

Again you’re confused by the efficacy of drug tests. If you can’t be sober for 1 or 2 days to get your job that you applied for, it’s far less likely that you are going to be sober on the clock. (Few places do uranalysis, and I’ve literally never heard of a blood or hair test which are the ones that actually can reliably test that far back).

Strictly speaking you cannot prove that the person who shot heroin during your interview, is also going to do drugs on the clock. It is however a very good indicator that they are unprofessional, will be a bad employee and are quite likely to drugs on the clock. Companies don’t just spend thousands of dollars a year to be cruel to employees.

1. Weak arguments aren’t going to be effective in leading to any train of thought. They are going to be immediately refuted.

2. Your arguments are popular and extremely stupid. This is because the vast majority of people spend little time on ethics, ontology, and formal reasoning. This is like producing a theory of QM, when you flunked Calculus. Anyone can do it, everyone makes the same serious mistakes, and I have to hear the same arguments every single time.

“Once we acknowledge”…

How do we acknowledge something that isn’t clearly true? (i.e not a tautology) First we must prove it to be true, then we can draw conclusions from it. As I already pointed out trying to prove that “human tissue only has value if it is thinking” fails because it’s actually false.

Here’s a formalisation of your reasoning.

1. An entity has no value unless it is thinking. Or less value than the mere desires of a thinking entity.
2. Fetuses do not think, therefore they have no value.

Problem is first premise is false and we can see that by determining what “thinking” is. Thinking or consciousness is a categorisation of intermittent and emergent behaviour. No human continously thinks, and even if they did it would not make sense to be able to classify them as thinking at any specific point of time. Individual firing of neurons is not thought, it is required for thought but it is not consciousness itself. It requires a system of neurons engaging in electrochemical action that meets some definition of thought (the exact definition doesn’t matter, what matters is that it is emergent not instantaneous).

Your assertion leads to the claim that human moral value must collapse when they are in a non-thinking state. But as already shown every human regularly satisfies this condition, so it must therefore be permissible to kill them. In other words if abortion is permissible by your criteria, so is killing the mother.

Of course we can avoid this clearly immoral conclusion by changing the criteria by which we value humans to “members of a rational class”. (Cancer cells clearly aren’t this). This completely avoids the problems of killing people arbitrarily, killing people who don’t solve a puzzle as fast as a rat, eating babies because we eat pork, all of which are logical conclusions of systems that only value thinking. (If you think this is motivated reasoning, simply research how moral systems are constructed and analytic descriptivism. You also used analytic descriptivism, you just horribly botched it by assuming that unproven premises were true).

Of course the only problem with this new system is that it doesn’t permit killing fetuses (except to save another human life), which you really, really want.

“Just because cancer cells…”

I can’t believe people delude themselves into thinking that this is a strong argument (again a very trite and silly argument). I fervently believe that we need government-mandated academic philosophers screaming into people’s ears every time they say stupid shit like this. Or maybe get shocked by their keyboard.

Or maybe protected status is based on species membership, and not level of thought.

Keep in mind that infants have a lower level of thought than pigs. If it is permissible to kill and eat pigs based on their low capacity for thought, then it surely applies to infant humans as well? After all anything otherwise is “specieism” which is totally the same as racism Singer argues. (Referring to Peter Singer who makes the same dipshit argument albeit more effectively than you).

Exploiting a double meaning; nobody claims that a fetuses right to life is greater than the mothers. You are conflating someone’s lifestyle choice with a right to life. Guess what? Society is based on restricting lifestyle choices, you can’t just scream and yell at everyone you meet. You’ll face repercussions that deter such behaviour.

“It doesn’t have thoughts or feelings to protect”

And you think this is why killing is wrong? You realise that these are emergent properties of neurological behaviour? You can’t even possess thoughts or feelings without some time interval, so by that criteria you should be killable so long as your brain hasn’t established a pattern sufficient to be considered a thought? In other words you can be killed at any moment so long as it is fast enough.

“That’s scientific”

You say to a scientist. Boy do I love when lay people try to incorrectly appeal to abductive reasoning.

FYI, also an atheist, another hilarious intellectual faux pas on your behalf.

“super terrible accidents”

Yes. Super terrible accidents that result in fewer deaths than any other power source per kilowatt/hr. (Even factoring in generous increases in cancer rates).

“Dealt with Chernobyl for years…”

You realise that all the estimated premature deaths are less than respiratory issues from air pollution. We could have a Chernobyl every year and it would be an improvement.

“I’m not trying to be pedantic”

You’re just being wrong.

“That’s just racist”

No. Claiming that there is a historical reason behind why black people are better athletes isn’t racism. It’s an attempted description, it’s no different than describing environmental pressures for sickle-cell. (I personally don’t know if the description is correct, but I hear it predominately from very pro-black activists, primarily trying to prove that all black reproduction was actually rape).

“Eugenics and racism”

That’s not an endorsement of eugenics, and eugenics is not the same as racism.

“They’re bigots and like having racist thoughts because it serves the bigotry”

What do you think racism and bigotry are? Isn’t racism a subset of bigotry? How does this statement make sense? Or any of yours for that matter?

Nobody optimises their computer build by targeting pi computation. LAPACK benchmarks are far more useful, because linear algebra is actually extensively use; nobody calculates transcendental constants beyond IEE754 precision.

Additionally that’s not how hardware is designed.

Nope. Alexander Yee literally just wrote the program for shits and giggles. (Even the mathematical routines aren’t generally useful).

Pi can be proven to be irrational with a pen and paper.

Hotels are way worse. It’s all the same job regardless of how fancy the hotel is, but the more expensive chains like Mariott will have bizarrely elitist staff, mostly front desk and management.