To keep the analogy going, they would have to have raped and beheaded the occupants of the death star before actually blowing them up…and the Death Star would have to have been an Imperial tourist destination with not just Imperial citizens, but also visiting citizens from all across the galaxy…but if that’s what George Lucas had filmed, I think there would have been a lot less sympathy for the rebels.
It’s critical to point out the primary scenario associated with the survey and chart data in that article.
“Given the scenario of irreversable brain injury”.
That changes everything.
Corporations should be held responsible for the emissions caused by their employee’s commuting.
This would really change the discussion about return to office.
Your comment is textbook sealioning.
Your employer is ALWAYS looking for a way to either get more work out of you for the same compensation, or replace you with some one or some process that produces the equivalent output for less cost. The entire idea that employees should be loyal to their employers is one of the most successful propaganda campaigns ever spawned by capitalism.
It’s pretty well established that GMOs ultimately cause a measurable and significant loss of biodiversity…which is bad for many reasons. I think in this case the companies and the product are both bad.
I’ve got no complaints with your other arguments, though.
Non-human predators that hunt, kill, and eat other animals…do you consider them unethical, or is it only unethical for animals capable of inventing the concept of ‘ethics’?
You really should be directing your angst at the bastards who respond to advertising. If it weren’t for them, there would be no advertising at all because it would be completely unfeasible. Nobody would be willing to pay for something that has no return on investment.
Domestic abusers shouldn’t have guns…this is true.
The problem is that responsible people get protection orders issued against them all the time (and what’s being discussed are protection orders, not convicted abusers)…because many states require no proof other than the word of the accuser…which inevitably leads to people weaponizing the process out of petty revenge or anger solely to make life hell for their ex. People convicted of domestic abuse would still lose their guns. What the article is discussing is whether people who’ve been accused without evidence should continue to have their rights stripped or not.