Well I didn’t want to have a bio, but Lemmy doesn’t let me null it out, so I guess I’ll figure out something to put here later.

  • 0 Posts
  • 97 Comments
Joined 6 months ago
cake
Cake day: May 10th, 2024

help-circle

  • pitninja@lemmy.pit.ninjatoMemes@lemmy.mlWe’ll see
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    11 months ago

    I would encourage people to code switch rather than adhere to one style of language over another in every case. Imho, it’s kind of problematic that language itself has become racialized in America to the point where people can actually be criticized or made fun of for speaking in the “wrong” style associated with their perceived ethnic background.


  • pitninja@lemmy.pit.ninjatoMemes@lemmy.mlMorality
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    It all starts with defining what morality means. The way I would define morality is behaviors that maximize flourishing for sentient creatures and minimize suffering. While it is clearly difficult to quantify flourishing and suffering, there are behaviors that clearly cause suffering in this world and impede the opportunity for flourishing and, by the above definition of morality, are plainly immoral. The way I see it, rejecting the possibility that flourishing and suffering can be quantified at all is the only argument that can be made against moral absolutism. Everything else is just quibbling over relevant variables across the spectrum of available behaviors to determine what makes them more or less moral. There is always a behavior that is objectively the more moral choice, but it might be difficult in practice to determine which is the more moral choice due to a lack of available relevant data. The absence of said data shouldn’t be assumed to be because it doesn’t/can’t exist, but rather that it hasn’t been collected. Rejecting the idea that there is always a more moral behavior amongst several choices is the dangerous assumption, imo.


  • pitninja@lemmy.pit.ninjatoMemes@lemmy.mlMorality
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’ve never heard a rational defense of moral relativism that made any sense. If there are no moral truths, then serial killers have done nothing wrong for example. If a moral relativist admits that there are some moral truths, then moral relativism is completely indefensible. At that point, you’re just arguing over what is and what is not a moral truth.



  • He probably doesn’t deserve a devil’s advocate, but that said, I’m pretty sure Louis didn’t masturbate in public, but rather during phone calls and in private in front of unconsenting or at least not explicitly consenting company, from the accounts I’ve read. I’m not defending it because it’s abusive and wrong, but it’s also not quite the same thing as masturbating in public.


  • Ah, I’ll be honest, I don’t actually read these emails closely often, but you’re right. Looking now through my inbox archive, I see that Amazon added an “I don’t know the answer” link in their email sometime between April and May of 2019. It looks like initially they had the text somewhat smaller for the “I don’t know the answer” link, but they seem to have increased the text size to match the “Answer/Respond to this question” link sometime between February and March 2020. At any rate, those emails were going out for many years before 2019 without an “I don’t know…” link and I think they could still probably make it clearer to people what they’re actually doing by posting “I don’t know” as an answer.



  • I would highly recommend the recent Freakonomics Radio series about whaling. It’s Episodes 549-551 and the bonus episode from 2023-08-06. If you’re firmly against killing any living creature (or at least sentient creatures), I highly doubt it will change your mind (and I don’t think that it should or that it tries to), but I also think it is really fascinating learning about the history of the whaling industry and hearing the perspective of a modern whaler in the bonus episode. Putting aside the obvious ethical issues with killing sentient creatures, it’s interesting to consider things like whether there’s a sustainable level of whaling, what a sustainable quota would look like, and how much we’re in competition with certain whale species for harvesting fish as food for our own species. I personally appreciated how unbiased Freakonomics tried to be in their discussion of the topic.








  • pitninja@lemmy.pit.ninjatoMemes@lemmy.mlDream
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    I really appreciate this response, I have basically no interest in spending time watching other people play games when I don’t even have time to play them myself very often. As a result, I have no idea who the celebs are in this realm of culture, so thank you for getting me up to speed!


  • pitninja@lemmy.pit.ninjatoMemes@lemmy.ml🙃😵💀
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    56
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    Aside from being tone deaf, I think this is bad advice. Common breakfast foods are fairly cheap comparatively and I’m pretty sure most nutritionists recommend eating something for breakfast to kickstart your metabolism. If I were skipping/reducing a meal, it would be lunch.