Eilrahc567


























  1. It’s really more about... does human life have value at its earliest stages?

  2. You could phrase it that way yeah, but I would argue that's essentially the same as asking "when does a human life acquire personhood?". Personhood is that thing which gives human life value (my opinion at least) - we wouldn't say a single human cell in a petri dish has the kind of value me or you have, yet all three would be human lives.

  3. But just because I would value say—a newborn baby—more than an embryo/fetus doesn’t mean that I don’t value human life at those early stages.

  4. I'm not sure what you're responding to, I agree with everything you just said.

  5. I'd say yes. Consider stereotypes. They are not necessarily characterisations which reflect what someone has actually done yet those for whom the stereotype applies are treated in society as someone who fits that characterisation, almost a priori in some cases. As such, at least societally, we are more than our actions, we are also what people percieve us to be.

  6. Thank you! I completely forgot about the FAQs lol.

  7. I align most with Labour ideologically but it's hard to think in terms of which party is best when it can vary from issues to issue and across time.

  8. I personally watched them "prequels, originals, sequels" (roughly speaking) just because I grew up with the prequels and thus they were my first exposure to SW. However, I would probably recommend "originals, prequels, sequels" as release order always account for how the story was intended to be told because subsequent films will always be made with prior films in mind from a narrative standpoint.

  9. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internalized_oppression

  10. I don't understand this conspiracy. Even if energy was zero-cost (which just doesn't make any sense economically let alone physically), it would still be either provided to people or regulated by governments such that individuals could not produce energy for nefarious purposes. If anything, giving individuals the ability to produce energy at zero cost invites more controlling behaviour from the state than what exists right now with energy companies.

  11. I think it would be dishonest of me to not acknowledge that I actively affirm secular values and would want my children (if I were to have any) to also adhere to those values. So whilst I'm not opposed to my hypothetical child(ren) attending religious services, I would only accept it so long as they still adhered to secularism. As such, there might be some potential for conflict should their exposure to religion lead them astray of a secular world view, but I think a decent amount of religious people are still secular in their approach to religion in society so it probably wouldn't be an issue.

  12. Caesar died over 2000 years ago, da Vinci only 500 years ago. By your logic da Vinci should already be more prominent today, which I really dont see.

  13. I disagree, I think da Vinci is more prominent today. I've never met a person who doesn't know that da Vinci painted the Mona Lisa. People might have heard of Caesar but I'm not sure everyone could name one of the important moments of his life (e.g. the conquest of Gaul, the Civil war, his death etc.).

  14. Cool, you might know that but I doubt more people know Caesar as the guy who named our months compared to knowing da Vinci painted the Mona Lisa.

  15. Not in any cosmically determined sense, but I think you can come to know someone whom you deem to be ideal for you and it therefore feels like you were 'made' to be with them when it is actually just a psychological bonding process.

  16. Sort of. I'm not sure the state should be able to restrict the liberties of people who spread misinformation in all cases. I guess it would depend on to what extent the misinformation is harmful. If I spread misinformation about the details of a historical figure's life, I'm probably not causing much harm (I emphasise probably, there could be cases where this example fails) and can be corrected by authorities on that kind of subject (historians in this case). However, if I am spreading harmful medical advice under the guise of expertise, I should probably face some punishment for doing so because my misinformation will directly lead to the harm of others.

  17. It wasn't communist in the sense that the economic and social structure never met the definition of a communist society. However, ideologically you can argue it was but that would probably be an oversimplification for the whole lifespan of the Soviet Union.

  18. I'm sure theorists have engaged with the question, but I don't understand what a more efficient alternative would be to using money. I fail to understand even more the notion that we can just do away with an economy, that seems extremely absurd to me.

  19. Mandatory to be taught, but not examined. I think it's good to expose people to other cultures through language, but it's that cultural exposure which I think is more important than acquiring another language (which is also important of course).

  20. I think sexuality constructs like homosexuality and bisexuality have an inherent social components and therefore it doesn't make sense to talk about them in the context of autoeroticism which does not have that social component to it.

  21. I grew up with the prequels. Idc if people think they are bad or even meme-worthy, I love them and always will. I guess the Clone Wars series would be a joint 1st for me as well - I just love that era of SW

  22. I would assume that an external world exists, so things would exist beyond just being sensory impression or mental concepts. What those things actually are is hard to say given that all I have are my sensory impressions and internal mental space to experience anything.

  23. I guess it isn't accurate to view people as solely rational agents. People live real lives where political issues matter, they are going to be emotionally invested for whatever reason in any given issue. The best we can do is try our best to step outside ourselves and view issues more objectively, but at the same time not delude ourselves into thinking we don't have our own emotions or passions in the political sphere - they are important.

  24. Yes, religious groups and their beliefs should be considered when making laws - for example, we should have laws which protect religious groups from discrimination. We'd hardly be a religiously tolerant society if we completely ignored religion in our lawmaking.

  25. I wish the Kill Bill volumes were separate, because I love 1 but 2 isn't quite as good imo

  26. Yeah but access to more information means on average people will be parsing through much more data on a daily basis than if the internet didn't exist, and I personally think any data processing our brains do will make them sharper.

  27. To some extent I suppose more information can be beneficial to cognitive ability. But an analogy I had in mind was giving a university textbook to a 5 yr old - they have a lot of high quality information before them but they lack the cognitive ability to engage with it in any meaningful way and therefore simply getting them to consume that information would not improve their cogntive ability. That's an extreme example, but illustrates the point that we need to have a certain basic framework of understanding and certain cognitive tools in order to make use of more information, and those tools and frameworks do not just emerge from the information itself.

  28. I'd say increase due to increases in nutritional (especially in early life), medical and educational quality.

  29. inflammation due to your immune system responding to the vaccine. It's perfectly normal and harmless.

  30. Climate change seems to be the main threat atm. I guess Nuclear war is the most immediate and easy way to end human life, but I personally don't believe it is likely to ever happen and if it were it would have already happened by now given past tensions.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Author: admin