Mail Carrier, Autistic, Parent, Pagan, and a very cool dog.
Nonbinary with no preferred pronouns. Engaged to a bisexual sponge.
Hmmm, I hadn’t considered it in those particular terms, previously. I would definitely say my actions are less moral than they would be if I was doing the raising and butchering myself. Evil feels harsh but if we are using clear cut terms like good, neutral and evil, then I have to put my current actions in the evil column. And since my entire argument is based on a moral middle ground, I would say yes. I am attempting to move into morally neutral territory.
I agree that question is morally neutral. And not yet, I don’t, but that is the long term goal. I’ve got the land I would need and am working on fencing. In the interim, I have switched to meat raised and butchered by hand.
I don’t know. That feels a bit off-center to me rather than middle considering one end of the spectrum is “kill nothing ever” and the other end is “How many endangered animals can I make extinct just for funsies.” If everyone killed what they ate themselves, manually, I bet we’d have a bunch more vegetarians hanging around.
Personally, I just think the moral middle ground would be to be the person that slaughters and butchers the animals you eat. It would allow the most respect for all parties imo.
Well yeah. I hope I didn’t imply they actually won lol. I’m saying they lost, but when people generally tell that story like in the various movies or a history class lecture, they’re positioned as the good guys. So many many years later, in that all we have are stories, that matters more than winning. Just my opinion I suppose.
Side note: yeah that Gerard Butler movie 😂
They covered this in Hitchhiker’s Guide. The answer is a towel. A towel is just about the most massively useful thing an interstellar hitchhiker can carry.
Reddit won in the since that Sparta lost. Nobody tells the story like they’re LOSERS. Sometimes, being the protagonist in a tale is more important than winning.
So, like, sisters of Jesus?
Saying it’s more efficient was meant to be a little tongue in cheek. It’s not now. It was a few hundred years ago when communication was still done by horseback.
Having local governments does mitigate the effect megacities have on rural locations, yes, but not regarding national elections. An argument I’ve heard time and time again for keeping the EC is that without it, each president would be decided by NYC and LA.
Right. Which is why I stated in my original comment that I am in favor of a popular majority vote…
Edit: typo
What doesn’t? That rural states have more weight via the EC than they would in a popular vote? It’s not a benefit to the country and citizens as a whole, but it is to those individual states.
EC is great when you’ve got too many people to tally votes efficiently. So basically it’s only use since the advent of the telegraph is to ensure mega cities don’t disproportionately affect rural locations via election results. With EC, rural states have more weight than they otherwise would. I still think we should switch to a popular vote for elections.
Glad I’m realizing this before getting too attached to any one account. Setting up on a few instances now.