PaintedSnail

It’s good to know that we have advanced as a society. We’re talking about now, not 80 years ago.

You also seem to be under the impression that making a “correct” choice would be without consequences. It would be nice if the moral or legal choice always had positive consequences for the chooser, but that’s not always the case. That doesn’t chance the morality or legality of the choice. Yes, soldiers have been persecuted for disobeying an illegal order; either legally or socially; but that doesn’t change their duty.

(Also, David McBride was arrested for releasing confidential documents, something that is very much illegal. We can debate the morality, but that’s not relevant here because it’s not remotely related to a soldier refusing to follow illegal orders.)

A soldier following an illegal order may lead to people dying unnecessarily, so they are duty bound to not follow illegal orders. A doctor choosing to not treat patients because they don’t like something about them may lead to people dying unnecessarily, so they are duty bound to treat all patients.

A doctor’s agency does not supersede another’s right to live. A doctor doesn’t get to choose who lives or dies; and yes, even requiring that the doctor refer the patient to a different doctor would result in people dying.

A soldier’s job includes disobeying illegal orders. That’s the law. Try again.

Nah. That would piss off the mailroom employees, but they don’t control who gets sent mail. The weight costing money does hurt the people who make the marketing decisions, though.

Blame Kellogg

deleted by creator

My response would be that if you cannot explain your position, then you cannot defend it, and therefore you do not understand it yourself. This implies that you are simply feeling you way into your position using gut instincts, which are easily created and manipulated without a reasonably sound argument. An ad on TV, a op-ed piece only half heard, a slew of biased headlines, and more all contribute to these gut feelings without providing a rational base.

In short, I reject your claim that complicated positions cannot be explained. Yes, many can’t be easily explained, but you should still be able to explain and defend them.

So when the position is challenged and you can’t defend it because you have only these gut feelings at the core, you fall back on the belief that anyone would have the same feelings eventually. This is, of course, not true.

I hate that phrase so much.

It sole purpose is to belittle and dismiss the person you are talking to.

It tells the person that they are obviously unable to understand because of some unrelated trait. It’s an ad-hominim that just shuts down the conversation.

It’s only used by people that cannot actually defend their position, but rather than continue to discuss it, they would rather just shut out the other person.

It’s them telling the other person “you are less than me which is why you are wrong, and you must simply accept that because you cannot possibly understand how I am right.”

Around me, Domino’s is good enough emergency pizza, and cheap enough if you use one of their coupon deals and pick it up yourself.

On a scale of 0 being a cockroach pit and 10 being a mom and pop shop in Chicago, they’re about a 5.5. It would be better if they cut down on the salt.

OP: posts example of Republicans taking credit for things they opposed

ITT: “Roads are bad!”

Kinda missing the point, here.

It also has built-in Facebook Container to isolate Facebook links.

https://newrepublic.com/post/187332/trump-biden-tough-netanyahu

When Trump says that Biden should not be holding Netanyahu back (regardless of whether or not he is) and that Netanyahu is doing a good job, then it can’t be much more clear that Trump is going to enable even more.

You know, at first I was thinking that this is a really bad take. But then I realized something: this is a classic trolley problem.

Sparing the details because you probably already know them, it comes down to a choice: you can do nothing and five people will die, or you can actively perform an action and only one person will die. The only choice you have is to do nothing or do something.

So the problem becomes: which is the morally correct choice? On one hand, does doing nothing absolve you of the five deaths you could have avoided? On the other, does actively participating make you responsible for the one death even if it was to save five?

Back in the real world, you have the same choice. Since voting for a third party that has no chance of winning is functionally equivalent to not voting, it plays out the same way. You can do nothing and the genocide gets worse, or you can actively participate and try to reduce the damage. Which is the moral choice? Which will help you sleep at night?

That is a question philosophers have struggled with for centuries, and there’s no good answer. From my personal perspective, doing nothing IS a choice, so no matter what I do I’m still an active participant. Therefore I will choose to minimize the damage.

Yes, it’s bullshit that the current administration hasn’t takes a tougher stance on the conflict. But it will be worse under Trump, as demonstrated by both his words and his actions when he was last in office. So the question is: which will help you sleep at night: doing nothing and telling yourself that you are not responsible when Trump wins, or doing something even though you know it won’t be enough?

As powerless members of the masses, it’s the best we can do.

I would suggest doing so anyway. If they come across a firearm by happenstance then they at least won’t panic and will know what to do to be safe.

Yeah, the side quests are rather unimaginative in their tasks. For the most part they’re not worth doing unless you want a bit more of a dive into the world lore. (A few give unique rewards, though.) Even some story quests are “player does menial chores for good karma with the locals because the devs need to pad things out a bit.”

Shadowbringers is worth it, though. It’s my personal favorite story arc. Endwalker, the one after, is my second favorite.

Come to FFXIV! We have decent stories, a voluntary PvP arena with multiple modes, and cat girls!

Basically, yes, though I think they have special hydraulic pullers, too. I forget the exact name. They have to take special measures if the day is too cold.

https://youtu.be/zqmOSMAtadc?si=FCG7HxiPWXNQY6Uj

According to Practical Engineering, tracks are no longer given a gap. The gap causes premature wear and excess noise. Instead, they lay the track under tension, and weld the joins between sections.

There is still a limit on how much heat they can handle before buckling, of course. I just thought that was a neat innovation.

And now you compare the Republicans to some natural force, as if they are inevitable and inescapable. Gravity has no will, no plan. It just is. Republicans have a will and a plan. Getting mad at the Democrats for not being good enough to stop that is akin to victim blaming. The Republicans should never have gone down this road in the first place.

Do you blame the thief, or do you blame the homeowner for not having better locks? Who do you hold accountable?

We’re not talking about a diseased animal, we’re talking about people who are making conscious decisions knowing what the results will be. I can and so absolutely blame people for that.

Your metaphor insinuates that Republicans are unable to control their actions. If that were the case, that’s all the more reason to vote and get them out of positions of power.

Because the Republicans control Congress, and at this point only an act of Congress can restore it.

It comes down to this: a Republican president would veto any abortion protection law, but a Democratic president would pass it. But the law has to get to his desk first.