I would just like to comment that if you love animals, you should hate pets. The amount of animal factory farming (killing of animals often more intelligent than your canine) required to nourish a domesticated animal over the course of their lives is gross in all senses of the word gross.
Mate, if ever there was someone who needed to spend an hour rolling around with a bunch of puppies, it's you. (=
I hope you can at least understand that pets bring joy into the lives of their owners. It doesn't all have to make perfect sense.
In the grand scheme of things, we're all just temporary cosmic dust, right? And dogs are a great daily reminder to focus on the small moments of happiness whenever you can find one.
This response to the point made by the person to whom you're responding is the philosophical equivalent of plugging your ears and going "la la la can't hear you".
> In the grand scheme of things, we're all just temporary cosmic dust, right?
What else would you be able to justify using this platitude?
This is a philosophical question I hadn’t considered. Although, I eat meat, so under that umbrella I can’t hate my dog for also doing the same.
I think another perspective to consider here is how this applies to rescue dogs. I rescued my dog, but from your pov it would’ve been a better idea to euthanize her to spare the lives of all the other animals she would’ve consumed in her lifetime.
Few more things that come to mind:
1. Nature does not reward for smartest, but for the fittest. Which is interesting in itself
2. Argument could be made the same for humans (there are some people that are not worth the life of a farm animal, for example). But also one could say that the summed intellect of all animals that have been killed for consumption for one person in their life time may be net more than that person’s intelligence
Yes, rescue makes no difference.
I don’t know that nature rewards anything. But with our power to make moral judgments comes a response to do so.
Yes, you could make the same argument for humans. I’m an antinatalist and so should everyone be too.
This was the argument I had with my wife over getting a cat. Eventually she decided ended up with a stray off the street. But there is always that element of, as Joe Rogan called it, "opening a can of murder" every time you feed them.
I am not for pet owner ship as a broad concept because of this feeding pattern but there is that issue of once they are here - then what? So long as we can get their numbers down then that is a good start. At the moment we are in a predicament, with a solution a while off.
I would submit my own for consideration: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B09FRR76YK
In it, I write every out-of-the-mainstream thought I've had in the form of written standup bits.
I'll mention that I made what could be described as a AI-generated Wikipedia alternative, where you can generate articles on anything with text links on terms that link to new articles that get generated considering the context of the the article path that got you there. I reckon Wiki-enthusiasts won't be disappointed: https://anylearn.ai
Of course it matters. Would we let a legal defendant put forth AI generated evidence as an alibi? No. In this case there are serious concerns of a coverup.
yeah right, keep stirring a non-existent pot. There's no serious concerns of a cover up. She's got cancer. Maybe they stage managed the setting, but that's understandable for production needs. I suggest you might like to try finding other things to be 'concerned' about.
I enjoy helping others to think outside the box. You have done quite well in placing your own perception onto two dimensional paper. Thanks for inspiring my own out-of-box interpretations.
I made https://anylearn.ai, an education app built on OpenAI. if you click the settings icon, then the teach tab, it will generate a teaching guide on any topic. Try it!
I put in "8th grade french" and it gave me a guide on how to develop a teaching guide, not the teaching guide itself. Like "Step 4: Prepare instructional materials", "Step 5: sequence the lesson", etc., with generic instructions for each. The Test Questions tab has questions about my knowledge of lesson planning, not questions for French students.
"College-level calculus" was similar, just vague generic high-level advice with no lesson plan or specific guide.
If there was a tab with a code example when the lesson is related to programming, it would be perfect, as the chat doesn't detect markdown's code block.
Am I the only one who thinks the US didn't actually achieve this achievement, which indeed would have been "insane" if they had?
See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DxW__ZtZApo
Of course they faked it. It's too damn hard, and they weren't about to risk the lives of astronauts.
You’re not the only one, but there don’t seem to be many of you. There’s just way too much evidence it was a real space program and all the counter arguments are weak, flawed or straight up based on absurd misunderstandings and misinterpretation of the evidence.
Even aside from the evidence itself it fails the massive conspiracy with no leaks test. Conspiracies leak exponentially with the number of people in the know. SOE worked this all out running operations in occupied Europe. This is why top secret intelligence operations employ incredibly rigorous procedures. Let’s say you have a spy in a foreign country, you make sure only a tiny number of people know the details, preferably low single digits, you layer and compartmentalise everything, you run decoy operations. Even then it’s incredibly hard, the vast majority of operations eventually leak. Only very few of the best run operations with very few people in the know ever last.
With the moon landings many hundreds, more like thousands of people would have to know. All of the astronauts and their backups, the model and set makers, the film crews, the mission flight staff, the film and video technical production staff. There were six manned landings, they’d have had to do the whole faking thing over and over again for years.
It’s several orders of magnitude bigger than most spy operations, made up of people who aren’t even spies, they’d be mostly civilians with very specific technical skills so you can’t be picky about who you select for it. There is no way this wouldn’t have leaked. Somebody on the inside would have said something to a friend or lover, or got pissed off over something, or changed their political opinions, or got sloppy or just decided to get famous and talk. Especially by now with the Cold War well and truly over. Why wouldn’t they? But no, nothing, not even a hint after fifty years. Ask anybody who knows anything at all about Intelligence operations how plausible that is.
For brain gymnastics: People who would be in the know are camera man, actors, upward chain of command, final finisher of the set. I could keep it below hundred (pm if you need next fake landing; sun costs extra)
I think you’re lowballing it, but anyway you’re forgetting the enormous rocket* everyone saw take off. It had to go somewhere.
Mission Control had 30 people in the room at a time, and each console had its own engineering room with about a dozen staff, and there were several shifts. Then there were the teams at tracking and communications stations all over the world. That adds hundreds more people at least, possibly thousands. They would all have to know the crew never actually landed on the moon.
*Sorry, silly me, six rockets over a period of three and a half years.
I suppose you could avoid bringing the mission control teams into the conspiracy by feeding them perfectly faked data for the whole of each mission. All you’d need is another huge team of engineers and their support staff to generate all the faked data, and hope the Mission Control teams never saw any discrepancies and figure it out. Problem solved!
You should consider spending less time on youtube viewing conspiracy theories or at least don't bring them here. Apollo 11 left a reflector on the moon that we have used since to accurately measure the distance between the Earth and moon since. A good rule of thumb to avoid promoting poorly sourced material is to never use a youtube video to "prove" anything that doesn't have a more legitimate primary source.
> It's too damn hard, and they weren't about to risk the lives of astronauts.
The same government that exposed its soldiers to nuclear detonations? That did biological weapons testing on its own civilian population?
You're absolutely right, there's no way they would have risked late-life cancer or even a spaceflight explosion on a dozen people who signed waivers of informed consent.
Every single one of us is expendable to our government. If they thought it important, or even just really really wanted to, they'd have killed thousands in the attempt. Anyone who doesn't see that is estranged from reality.
