What kind of democracy are we in where this many people are hoping for a case to go to SCOTUS because the justices were both chosen by, and politically aligned with, the POTUS? It keeps me up at night thinking why anyone would think it is okay to root for a biased SCOTUS decision; then when they have the unmitigated, unadulterated gall to remain unbiased, Trump supporters are not only upset, they say that the SCOTUS is now fraudulent.

(BTW: To clarify, since I know how Trumpers are: any Trump opposers are left-wing Biden lovers, I am independent and I think both choices were equally terrible so I did not vote. If I could vote for anyone, I would have voted for Mike Pence--who I also think is terrible, but he would have been the best option, IMO.)

The similarity of this game--the knowledge of which I possess solely based on your description--is not without the boundary of what is expected in any healthily functioning society, barring a couple protocols (one of which being a leader extending their post unless otherwise outlined as being permissible in their country's constitution/national laws). So, to say "dishonored is non-fiction" would, naturally, suggest to me that our reality is so absurd/unreal that it resembles a game intended to be based on fiction. I am not saying that my suggestion is the entailment of what you are saying, rather it is how I process it (especially due to your use of the word "uncomfortable" when asking if the game is close to reality).

So, a clarification is needed to prevent my overthinking everything: In your opinion, should saying the game resembles our reality be a compliment to the production team for appreciating modern and historic laws/protocols on how to function in a pandemic, or is it an insult to the governments resembling Dishonored that their responses to the pandemic could've been constructed by a mere child who is a fanatic of the game?

(SN: Glad to be back and see you're still here!)

Wow. I have been gone a few years and I see nothing has changed about you, Atrag. You are the same walking ad hominem machine as you have always been.

Obviously. If Nike believed they would lose money for their shareholders (although they have lost a few points), they would not have made this highly controversial move.

Is it fair to narrow in on law enforcement officers? I think his position, although not explicitly stated, is regarding civilians.

The entire story is false. Michael Jordan did part ways with the Nike brand. Stop debating over something that did not happen.

Assuming the blind man understands that he is blind, and what that entails, I would assume that he understands that there are things that exist that he could never know due to his condition. I would also assume that the blind man understands that there are others who will have the ability to see what he cannot. Given those two assumptions, I would suggest that the blind man not contend with that which he understands he is incapable of disproving.

"By your definition, every deliberate killing would be genocide (even mercy killings, etc.) - it isn't."

By my definition, every collectively deliberate killing of a specific racial group may be considered a non-standard form of genocide.

"A) You have separated deliberate from its use - it is not that the killing is deliberate, it is that the systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group is deliberate."

There are several differently phrased definitions of the word genocide.

Genocide - the deliberate killing of people who belong to a particular racial, political, or cultural group.

"B) one killing is not a systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group"

If 1,000 Nazis killed 1,000 Jews, obviously with each Nazi killing 1 Jew, would that be considered genocide? You see, it is not one lady killing one baby, it is hundreds of thousands of women killing hundreds of thousands of babies. The collective action done to a particular racial group, though done by the same racial group, is what I am suggesting may be considered a form of genocide.

I suppose I would not be able to prove such a concept to a person who is afflicted with a condition that occludes them from seeing the evidence for the existence of that concept. The Judeo-Christian god (who I am assuming is the analog), however, presumably created humans to have the ability to recognize his existence, or the evidence thereof.

The act of killing their offspring is deliberate and results in the "destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group;" therefore, the act can be considered an anomalous form of genocide.

A blind person denying color seems a bit absurd as 'color' is a concept that is inconceivable to a person who cannot see light.

So, essentially, you've rendered the concept of Nihilism invalid?

Firstly, not all zoos do not only house endangered species. Secondly, most zoos do not have any program for minimizing the impact of whatever is causing the endangerment--they're simply exploiting animals for monetary gain. Inbreeding white tigers (a rare mutation) to sell to other zoos does not aid in the advancement of the species.

I do believe that a high IQ standard for government officials is necessary for an optimally functioning society; however, in practice, there are too many factors that would make the system flawed such as, without limit:

(1) Social Skills - A substantial amount of highly intelligent people are poor communicators--not that they cannot get their point across, rather, they may have difficulty delivering information in a way that is comprehensible to commoners (i.e., the general public). Currently, most politicians either think of (or are introduced) ideas of some critical, societal change, and they have researchers and scientists to run the numbers/data for them while they deliver the results to the public.

(2) IQ test validity - While an IQ test does a very good job at measuring pattern recognizing/deductive abilities, both of which are essential for intellectually rigorous tasks, it does not measure things such as decision making, discipline, impulsivity, empathy, dedication, sanity, irritability, diligence, etc., all of which are necessary for functional leaders.

There are more, but I would just be expounding on things that I have already mentioned. Further, all of the contentions can be (and are) a part of the contemporary government system, I am simply just pointing out how such a paradigm shift would not change much of how things are run. Intellectual capital should be allocated, however magically possible, to the general public. Insomuch as the people make poor decisions, be they health, finance, etc., the inevitability of a suboptimal nation--which I am sure is what the purpose of an "iqocracy" would be to fix--will remain.

First of all, what basis do you have for claiming the sole purpose of a particular human function?

An intraspecific function is anything which is specific to the species and its advancement in terms of its continuation (surviving).

Second, our ability to express complex concepts goes far above and beyond simple survival and reproduction [...]

Not if the expression of complex concepts can be deemed necessary for survival.

humans are the only organism to have deliberately and significantly altered their circumstances, and complex language is a crucial element of doing so.

I wouldn't term it deliberate given the primary factors that preceded the alteration were uncontrollable. Human evolutionary traits, such as our mode of communication, were not contrived, they were naturally selected for.

Third, scale, regardless of "overarching goals", is still a distinction. Whether it's "vivid" or not is irrelevant.

I suppose I should have included an adjective in the title. "Red" is distinct from "Blue" yet they are both colors. A "whale" and a "goat" are two different species yet they are both animals. There are many a feature that distinguishes the two significantly, but the differences, as you and lots of others claim, are not comparable to the differences between humans and dolphins--to which I disagree.

'Scale' is irrelevant in the context--which, admittedly, I should have established--of this debate. Again, there are vast differences between birds and snakes, but we don't say there are 'birds' and 'nonbirds'.

Intelligence is a fundamental prerequisite to reasoning in any meaningfully complex context; acknowledging it as a specifically human characteristic contradicts both your specific point (that animals are also capable of reason) and your claim (that no distinction between humans and nonhumans exists) as a whole.

I never claimed that intelligence is a characteristic specific to humans; I suggested that humans constructed the concept of intelligence based on their premise of what makes them uniquely intelligent, and extended that concept to encompass other species, which is fallacious.

Sex is a basic endeavor; stacking boxes, however, require the stacker to logically assess its environment and understand how Box + Arrangement = access to food, while also understanding the functions of the two.

The actual scientific claim is that we are more closely related to pigs than monkeys...

The claim that you misrepresented is that we share a common ancestor. Our relatedness to pigs is a different matter which does not support your initial claim of scientists claiming chimp ancestry.

Some research has actually found 'poop throwing' as a form of self-expression.

https://phys.org/news/2011-11-poop-throwing-chimps-intelligence.html

[A]nimals are incapable of communicating complex ideas to one another [...].

That is a human function necessary for intraspecific progression and sustenance as it pertains to survival and reproduction. Separate mechanics does not sufficiently illume a vivid distinction between humans and nonhumans since the overarching goals are the same.

[A]n animal is considered particularly intelligent if it's capable of figuring out how to open a jar.

The sorts of animals that can open a jar are considered 'intelligent' as defined by humans in the same fashion 'Jaywalking' and 'Murder' are considered crimes as defined by the human convention of law. It is fallacious to construct a criterion (intelligence) specific to a certain group (Humans), extend it to an entirely different group (Nonhumans), and then claim that the group for whom the criterion was constructed fits that criterion better than the group used for distinction.

Animals reason as a provable fact?

What is a chimpanzee doing when stacking boxes to climb to reach a fruit?

Atheists claim chimps are our forefathers and closest intermediary relative.

No, those like you claim that scientist make that claim when in fact their position is that chimps and humans share a common ancestor.

They literally throw poop around like it's a toy.

And humans clap as if it's sensible...

"It's the only race that never focuses on its own self interests."

Is mass colonialism a variant of altruism?

"It's the only race that tries to lift every other race [...]"

Was 'racial uplift' apart of Portugal's goals when settling in Brazil and attempting to enslave the Native American race, only to realize that importing different race (African blacks) would better serve their altruistic endeavor?

"[The white race] helps its own people and lifts them up in no way, all while losing ground to everyone else."

Right, as European efforts to colonize undeveloped, economically fruitful and militarily advantageous lands were vastly unsuccessful.

"Native American fund? Yep. United Negro fund? Yep. White man fund? Nope. Native casinos? Yep. White man casinos? Only in a few spots like Vegas."

I suppose governmental subventions to those economically powerless is a very intolerable act, especially since your claim is that they are not self-interested... The governmental provision of a Native American fund is analogous to an intruder seizing your home, but allowing you to sleep in your, I mean their garage.

"For whites in minority zones where whites are almost nonexistant, the NBA, the NFL, or the MLB? Nope."

Wall Street is just rife with Native Americans.

"Native free healthcare? Yep. White free healthcare? Nope."

I guess this ridiculously unreasonable given that the natives were almost wholly exterminated due to European diseases and shared the profits that the English wrested from their land.

"What other race actually throws ITSELF under the bus?"

I can tell you a race throws another to the back of the bus...

What you are presenting now is seemingly a valid comparison; however, the reasons underlying the two foregoing perspectives are, still, flawed and incomparable.

Probability cannot say anything certainly, only probably (hence probability). The statement that it is easier to create simulated realities than real realities is flawed since we have no fundamental idea as to how a 'real reality' is created.

Virtual reality and 'physical' reality are diametrically opposed. Unless you are suggesting that we live in a simulation (e.g., the matrix), then the comparison is flawed.

I don't think that this would be a 'logical' conclusion. Rather, it would be an understandable response.

If they raped and murdered your daughter, you'd consider it an easy call.

The arguer claimed that offenders who are repeatedly jailed should be put to death; he offered no specificity as to which crimes, such as rape and murder, justify the death penalty.

By presenting an argument from the opposite you do not, in fact, confute the interpretation from this position.

Well, this is going nowhere. This is a matter of interpretation, and you have subjected the answer to require a subjective analysis of English grammar.

The distinction between considering the target for extermination sub human vs non human is minor. Both the Jews and fetuses are considered less than fully human and thus acceptible to extinguish.

Again, the Jews were considered fully human, just an inferior race (the University of Tennesee (UKT) being inferior to Princeton University, for example, does not make UKT less of a University, just simply an inferior one). Thus, the comparison is still invalid. No matter, just use another one....

This action of "speaking" a universe into existence merely to do the inverse is wasteful and wholly nonsensical...

The act of killing someone that is a repeat offender and has been to prison many times is moral and should be allowed.

So, if I get arrested, repeatedly, for petty theft, I should be killed?

Those that pose a risk to society if they escape prison should be put to death.

The risk being potentially missing potato chips at a 7-Eleven...

I'm sure you noticed that I qualified this statement as being from the perpctive of the pro life position.

I understand. I am merely confuting your interpretation of their perspective.

Similarly, the Nazis didn't view Jews as people and outside interference would have been considered an infringement on a sovereign nation.

To analogize the political viewing of persons as subhuman--an inferior human being--and the biological view of a fetus as an entity wholly distinct from a Human is, still, a faulty analogy. The obvious fault being that the Nazis viewed the Jews (among others) as being people/Human, just an inferior race within the species, while most of the pro-choice advocates view the fetus as being a bundle of cells with the potential to be Human.

-

From both the Nazi and Pro-choice perspective, respectively:

Subhuman = Human (+) Inferiority

Fetus = Bundle of cells (+) Potentiality (-) Humanness

Pro choice may not mean we should kill people (pro abortion), but the killing of babies is acceptible [sic]. This is not a much better position.

That is a gross misrepresentation of their position: (1) They generally do not view the fetus as being a "person"; and, (2) given the foregoing perspective - that the fetus lacks personhood - those who maintain the pro-choice position would not likely consider the fetus a "baby", either (especially since the term "baby" refers to a born child).

Imagine saying that you don't agree with genocide, but the German people had a right to govern their country as they saw fit.

This is a faulty analogy due to the foresaid misrepresentation.

Well, challenging a child's belief benefits the child. The mere fact that a child sought out a medium - this site - to transcribe his or her opinions with the appreciation that such opinions may be challenged says lots about the child's intellectual curiosity.

To deter a child from a medium that may reshape their perspectives on life, in my opinion, stunts their intellectual development.

Well... the Tiger itself did not originate in Africa, the Felidae family from which it parted did. The Tiger, as we know it, originated--or came into existence in its known form--and evolved in Asia.

The tigers are supposed to be a protected species in Africa, but the government's there are very untrustworthy and cannot be depended on to enforce protection laws.

Tigers do not naturally live in Africa; they live in Asia and Russia.

A woman's body and life is her own business.

However, the distinct life within her (especially during the third trimester) is the government's business (so saith the constitution).

Black women collectively killing their offspring can constitute genocide.

The definition of genocide does not specify the manner in which the killing is done; the deliberate killing of a particular ethnic group (in massive numbers) is the only condition that need be present. Therefore, if his (massive) numbers are accurate, he can euphemistically term the label of their aggregate actions, though non-conspiratorial, as genocide.

I properly addressed your argument.

The actual notion that agreeing with one means you agree with the other is untrue but the fact that allowing one makes a household much more prone to explode into the latter is where the truth lies.

Physical punishment as a mechanism to correct perceived misbehavior is present in both situations, which means that, if you agree with one, you would necessarily agree with other.

Domestic violence often takes the guise of punishment in the eyes of the abuser.

So does corporal punishment, which is why both are reprehensible.

If we outlaw any physical punishment to anyone else then the physicality itself is what makes it wrong and negates any possibility of domestic violence being seen as morally correct.

The physical aspect is what is (subjectively) wrong and objectively harmful with no long-term benefits. Physical punishment is merely painful classical conditioning.

And still I maintain that the protein in those legumes and nuts and whatnot is simply not as efficient at building lean muscle mass as good old lean meat protein.

What makes protein from the numerous herbivorous sources any less effective than meat-based protein?

And cholesterol is NOT the enemy. Do you know what it even is? We NEED cholesterol, It is a sterol created in out bodies. Of ocurse the Low density variety needs to be kept in moderate quantities.

I am not talking about healthy levels of cholesterol, obviously.

Same deal with fat. Including saturated fat. It is NOT the enemy to today's obesity problem. Not even close, amigo. Red meat and dairy and fats were given an unduly harsh rap back in the early 2000s. Nutritionists claimed them to be the enemy.

I never claimed that saturated fat is the enemy to obesity problems; I merely suggested that high levels of it is not healthy.

Did you know saturated fat is brain food? Yep. Look it up, or I can provide some sources. Key word: "Myelin sheaths." LOL

Again, I never stated that saturated fats are unhealthy at moderate quantities.

---

Aside from the obvious strawmans; if you are going to argue effectively, I would suggest that you use sources from reputable websites (instead of citing partial websites like beefmagazine.com).

The answer choices render the question a bifurcation fallacy: The effects of hip-hop--an entire music genre--surely can be both positive and negative (or neither, depending on the context). For instance, there are children shows with hip-hop elements dedicated to education (e.g. Hip-Hop Harry).

There is a problem with getting sufficient protein and fat in the veggie diet. And whey protein supplements are simply not as good as old fashioned lean meat protein.

Of course you aren't referencing the 'veggie diets' incorporating peas, nuts, beans, etc.--all of which are high sources of protein (excluding the high amounts of cholesterol and saturated fats that meat contains).

Oh, and here is a disclaimer that the source you listed offers:

The information is merely our personal opinion and should not be taken as fact.

WE DO NOT CLAIM TO BE DOCTORS, NUTRITIONISTS OR DIETITIANS. THE INFORMATION ON THIS WEBSITE DOES NOT REPLACE PROFESSIONAL MEDICAL ADVISE.

The transition from prepubescence to pubescence is sort of predicated on sexual maturity; moreover, puberty is defined as: The period during which adolescents reach sexual maturity and become capable of reproduction.

I do not know if you are trying to distinguish between the social definition of maturity or the biological. If the former, I wholly agree that someone who just reached puberty does not render them socially mature enough to make coherent, sexual decisions.

Pedophilia is defined as having a sexual attraction to prepubescent children.

The ONLY thing we can know for sure is that our world WILL end in about 500 million years [...]

We cannot know that for certain; that is nothing but a mere calculated prediction.

Still the question remains why is the tiger or the ecosystem more valuable than human life.

The debate is about quantitative value, not inherent value.

You say tiger because the ecosystem is more worth saving than human life.

I say tigers--esp. three--because they are objectively--in terms of quantity--more valuable than humans.

The ecosystem is always in flux. An ecosystem imbalance is its natural state .... Any perceived balance is simply an inability to see all variables.

This may be technically true, but a further imbalance as a result of an entity intendedly compounding the imbalance would not maintain the notion that the new natural imbalance--as caused by the said entity--as being 'natural'.

If we mess up the environment, life adapts and goes on. If we mess it up enough, life adapts and goes on without us. We don't mess up things for the earth, but rather for ourselves.

Earth fineness is dependent upon those who experience it; and for a species to wittingly ebb earth's resources necessary for so many lifeforms including itself is unarguably irrational.

Animals go extinct all the time. They always have and always will. Tigers can go extinct and things will ultimately be ok.

But why allow an animal to go extinct when there is absolutely no reason to do so? That one baby's value, in terms on quantity, is mathematically lesser than the three tiger cubs. It seems a little wicked to intentionally facilitate the reduction of a critically endangered species, when one can do elsewise.

What if the choice was between a baby and 3 baby critically endangered stag beetles? Will this change the logic of your argument?

No, actually; I am not a speciesist, and therefore value the presence of all animals equally (with the rational exceptions of offspring, sibling, and/or other close relatives).

If I were a tiger, my worldview would be tigerpocentric.

You seem to imply that any certain species will have an overly interspecific-centric worldview, which my advocacy for saving the three cubs evidences the contrary.

I agree with this context; however, I thought a valid counterpoint could state that the terminal illness is the problem, and hence if the terminal illness was eliminated, then the person with it would not end their life.

Sorry, but you aren't talking about complex philosophy, you are talking about incorrect philosophy.

There is no such thing as an "incorrect philosophy", rather someone can be incorrect when citing a specific philosophy.

Influence and strongly compel are vastly different.

First, the term I used was 'impel', which was used in the definition of autonomy (which I am positive you did not bother to read). Second, your influenced belief can impel you to do the action which is derived from that belief.

Very clever. Use a fake word, then correct me for using it as well. What the fuck is wrong with you?

Capitulation is a real word, the way in which you used it was improper: you used capitulate as if it were a noun, which it is not, instead of a verb, which it is. I expressly stated this in the sentence in reference, and I am nonplussed as to how you could not comprehend it.

--

I see no point in further disputation as you obviously do not have the intellectual capacity to understand relatively complex positions, or you are not even putting forth any intellectual effort to engage in fruitful philosophical discourse.