Fawkes
@Fawkes@lemmy.zip
- Comment on I'm right and the other vegans are wrong 1 day ago:
I’m in the same boat. I actually agree with 90% of veganism. Animals shouldn’t suffer needlessly. People should eat less meat and animal products. Factory farming is horrifying and unethical. Where it falls apart is the universal claim of “Therefore, even the smaller regenerative and ethical farms are evil, because ALL animal use is unethical.” Which, if you follow the logic and consequences, requires us to either support millions of animals in domestic environments without ANY method of financial independence beyond donations or government support. Or, we drive dozens of distinct species to extinction, simply because some people feel personally attacked when I make an omelette. If we could ask the animals themselves, I struggle to believe that a happy cow living on a dairy farm would prefer non-existance to getting milked occasionally when they want to.
I have very little respect for anyone who cannot justify opinions, or get offended when beliefs are questions. If you don’t want your beliefs questioned, don’t announce them.
- Comment on I'm right and the other vegans are wrong 2 days ago:
I’ve tried to have this discussion SO many times, and every time I’m treated like there’s nothing I love more than raping goats and torturing pigs.
That cow that lives on the hobby farm, spends its days roaming fields and eating flowers, then gets milked in the evening and petted with genuine love and affection, is not worse off because the farmer didn’t create a formal contract in order to obtain it’s consent to be milked.
It gave its consent by walking to the milking station, and waiting to be milked.
“Nuh uh! That’s not consent! It didn’t learn English and say the words ‘I consent to being milked,’ therefore milking it is evil!”
- Comment on Nice Going Buddy 6 days ago:
Lol wow. Way to show your stupidity. Newtonian physics is a single branch, dipshit.
Organic chemistry is dictated by physics, which is only a single step away from pure mathematics.
I asked what argument you were trying to make, because you keep changing the subject of the conversation to the point of incoherence. But you’re obviously too much of a pathetic religious cuck to engage with actual reason. 👍
- Comment on Nice Going Buddy 6 days ago:
Have a meaningful conversation of how an all powerful, good God can allow so much suffering. Either he isn’t good or he isn’t powerful.
Evolution is driven by adversity. Organisms experience stress, seek to relieve themselves of that stress, and improve upon their function iteratively over billions of years.
So is the all-powerful God constrained by physics or not? What argument, precisely, are you making? When the initial comment was to defend the belief in an all-powerful God.
- Comment on Nice Going Buddy 6 days ago:
You’re engaging dishonestly and changing the subject entirely. No comment was made on what humans worship or why, every comment was directed at a supposedly all-powerful God.
You made an argument that this all-powerful God was constrained by physics. Then it cannot be an all-powerful God.
That’s the argument against creationism and religions with all-powerful deities.
Magic rock to blame for all my problems? I honestly have no idea what you’re getting at here. Theists blame magic for their harms. Atheists accept it as blind consequences in an uncaring universe. You’re literally assigning theistic beliefs on atheism.
- Comment on Nice Going Buddy 6 days ago:
So then this all powerful God isn’t smart or powerful enough to make a universe in which suffering isn’t necessary. Seems pretty limiting for an all powerful, all knowing being.
Do you also make justifications for billionaires that destroy the world? Because you’re putting quite a bit of energy in to justifying something that is supposedly beyond comprehension. Wouldn’t the more honest answer just be “I don’t know.”
- Comment on I could quit AI anytime I want to 3 weeks ago:
Probably. The system is broken. But let’s not blame a mindless, emotionless chemical for how it is being abused and misused. Throw rocks at the assholes causing harm, not the needle laying in the street.
- Comment on I could quit AI anytime I want to 3 weeks ago:
This is wildly incorrect. If by AI you mean exclusively modern LLMs, then it would effectively halt quite a lot of modern research, including virology, epidemiology, physics, materials sciences, and many more.
If by AI you mean the actual definition of AI, then you can say goodbye to the Internet as we know it today. Translation services, fraud protection, GPS, 99.9% of all software development, etc. nobody had a problem with AI ~5 years ago. Those exact same algorithms are now flagged as evil because people misunderstand what they’re even complaining about.
The impossibility of removing the Internet is identical to the impossibility of removing AI. Or, if you use the incorrect term to mean LLMs exclusively, then say goodbye to quite a lot of critical modern research. I hope you don’t like antibiotics, because there was a recent breakthrough that used Evo 1 and Evo 2, both LLMs trained on genome data.
- Comment on I could quit AI anytime I want to 3 weeks ago:
Me, an ADHD sufferer, “Yeah, meth is terrible. But please don’t try to ban amphetamines universally.”
- Comment on onions 4 weeks ago:
Same actually. But I later discovered the reason why I don’t like raw onions is because I have an allergy that gives me migraines when I eat them. Cooking them is fine and delicious though.
But yeah, used to be teased incessantly by family for being “Picky.”
- Comment on onions 4 weeks ago:
No, that’s not how that works. Your own personal experience is fine and valid, but try not to make the assumption it’s true for anyone else.
- Comment on And The Lord Said BOUNCE! 4 weeks ago:
POGO POGO POGO POGO POGO POGO POGO!
- Comment on Saw this at the store this morning, took a double take 4 weeks ago:
Only because the boundary has been set to include genuine adults. That boundary SHOULD be pushed.
- Comment on Saw this at the store this morning, took a double take 4 weeks ago:
Sure, I’m not against that at all. I hate advertisements and would take no issue with a universal ban. My problem was with the arbitrary moral outrage at this advertisement targeting “Children,” by virtue of the utterly meaningless phrase “Under Age,” which includes actual, legitimate adults, in the US.
- Comment on Saw this at the store this morning, took a double take 4 weeks ago:
Sure, but the primary complaint was against a 0% alcohol beer targeted at “Children” by nature of using the term “Under Age.” I have no complaints against wanting to remove advertising, in general, including drug advertisements.
- Comment on Saw this at the store this morning, took a double take 4 weeks ago:
Below drinking age, sure. I think the nonsense here is that the US considers you “Under age” until you’re 21. So you’re complaining about an ad targeting children, when the target is literally “Anybody under the age of 21.” Which is an unfair complaint to make.
Because using that same logic, “under age” porn is actually legal. Because at 18 you can get fucked in the ass by 3 dudes at once, but not buy a beer.
I hear you say “But there are different ages for X and Y.” Yeah, but it’s the exact same term used to mean the same idea with completely different ranges and neither has any justification beyond “Uh… Here’s the cut-off I guess?”
Would you take issue with 18yr olds having beer ads aimed at them? Because that’s technically “Under Age Beer!” And they’d be considered full adults here in Germany.
- Comment on Saw this at the store this morning, took a double take 4 weeks ago:
Except the US concept of underage also includes people 16 to 20, which this ad is undoubtedly target towards. If it was an ad for beer with bright colours and cartoon characters I would agree, but it is not.
- Comment on Saw this at the store this morning, took a double take 4 weeks ago:
So 19yr olds shouldn’t be advertised to? What’s the cut off?
I actually fully agree that all advertisement is awful and support removing it entirely.
But lacking that, I don’t see an issue with advertising universally. And if we’re going to restrict advertisement to children, target actual children. “Teenagers” includes people legally old enough to join the military and kill other humans.
- Comment on Saw this at the store this morning, took a double take 4 weeks ago:
I’m pretty sure young and impressionable children get used to the idea of drinking beer from friends and family. I think the bigger issue is that the drinking age is fucking 21. It’s absolutely nonsense. If you want to protect children from alcohol abuse, talk to them, teach them, let them have alcohol when they’re ready to try it, in safe settings.
- Comment on thoughts and prayers for science 1 month ago:
Sure, but the logic reveals literally nothing. I can create an entire Sims world for the sole reason to see if the “turn pink clothing in to green clothing” mod works. Does the fact that their existence had a reason actually mean a damn thing?
- Comment on How often is normal to masturbate? 1 month ago:
What you want to be normal and what is actually normal are not the same thing. Regardless of best wishes, it actually is normal in a shocking number of places. Unless you’re referring exclusively to the small social circle you live in, but that’s not really a useful data point for us to discuss, because it’s not what the conversation is actually about.
- Comment on How often is normal to masturbate? 1 month ago:
Hey peeps, I’m pretty sure they’re reacting to the SECOND “normal” statement, not the first.
- Comment on Keep off the sofa 2 months ago:
Why did you feel the need to make that comparison? Did anyone here mention supporting their actions? Is the strawman fighting back?
- Comment on Anon is a nice guy 7 months ago:
I understand your justifiable concern, however I disagree with the blanket statement.
First off, if I remember the video correctly, it is not hidden that Waymo was the video sponser. It may not have been in the spotlight, but I don’t think that’s automatically a bad thing.
Secondly, it is very possible for some one to hold different opinions to yours, even with identical evidence. It was clear to me that he really did like the technology and made his best case for it. If new information has come to light, then that’s worth re-examining the opinion. Personally, I have always been in fabour of replacing human drivers with AI, for a wide variety of reasons. I agree with his sentiment that the sooner we replace human drivers, the safer we’ll all be. That being said, there is obviously a conflict of interest in the industry between making the technology safe, and profitable. And we all know what happens the larger an organization gets.
Third, the majority of the videos are not opinion pieces. They explain physics, chemistry, mechanics, etc. I’m not sure how some one can misrepresent physics, without being objectively wrong. And they seem to be pretty universally correct in their rigor. There has been more than one instance where the channel has come under scrutiny for being accused of manipulating experiments, and each time he comes back to re-explain the experiment and show that it had been misunderstood, not misrepresented.
iflscience.com/youtuber-derek-muller-won-a-10000-…
Hard to find a direct like but the “How electricity works” controversy also seems to fit this theme.
I am not saying the channel is above skepticism or is the poster child of perfection by any means. But I don’t think it’s fair to boycott on the grounds of a single opinion you happen to disagree with, especially when that opinion is genuinely based on available research and evidence. I think this is actually a disservice to progress as a whole. If you find an enemy in everyone that does share your exact values, it leaves progressives divided.
- Comment on Anon is a nice guy 7 months ago:
This is the first I’m hearing of this, usually it’s the opposite. Care to provide justification and evidence?
- Comment on Anon travels overseas 9 months ago:
I mean, yes that’s absolutely true, but many Americans really do prefer to drive even short distances. When I lived in North Carolina people regularly drove to the other side of the parking lot to eat, shop at different stores, meet up with friends, etc. I asked several people why they didn’t walk, and every single one said they hated walking and would drive or re-park if it was further than a few seconds walk.