Search results

Valka's scenario doesn't give us any choice; she's right that we couldn't do anything with that many animals, and so we could either allow them to die slowly or kill them mercifully. My impression is that she thinks that both options are nonstarters for vegans, and that this is proof that...

Kill them. It's no different than euthanising a cat or a dog to spare it a slow death on the street.

What is the point of your hypothetical if it only pertains to a small minority of vegans?

Even PETA isn't opposed to killing animals under any circumstance; they actually condemn no-kill shelters (see here). So your hypothetical, in which it is illegal to kill an animal for any reason, isn't an accurate representation of their position.

Best version: dQ7TmmyZnHI

So you're saying that it would be easier for women, an oppressed group, to quit being oppressed, than it would be for young people, a privileged group, to stop oppressing, and your justification for this is a specious proverb.

The fact that what she did to herself was so incredibly delusional and rare kind of proves that her condition was significant.

Child mortality is greater in the third world, but something like half of it is due to poor nutrition an contaminated water, which supports what Borachio was saying.

For MDD all three are required, but if someone doesn't meet duration or severity then they can be diagnosed with "depressive disorder not otherwise specified", which is basically a catch-all. I don't believe distress/impairment get any wiggle room, so I guess you could say that's the most...

Severity, duration, and impairment. To be diagnosed with major depressive disorder you have to meet at least 5 symptoms, they must be present most of the day almost every day for at least 2 weeks, and they must cause clinically significant distress or impairment.

Falsification is the experiment bit.

Yeah, I think the Dominion War was a mistake. The Maquis were a more interesting opponent—they couldn't match the Federation militarily, but it didn't matter because they challenged them philosophically (e.g. Eddington's speech at the end of For the Cause). On the other hand, the only question...

It doesn't sound as though they're in favour of benevolent sexism, they're merely differentiating between overt misogyny and the more backhanded stuff.

What about Raiders of the Lost Ark?

Given that Japan's navy and air force were completely decimated and it didn't have the industrial capacity to rebuild them, couldn't the US have taken its toys and gone home? It's like, if you're attacked by an angry turtle and you manage to knock it on its back, you needn't then beat it half to...

1990 isn't too bad. The La's - There She Goes Pixies - Velouria Fugazi - Turnover A Tribe Called Quest - Can I Kick It? Cop Shoot Cop - She's Like a Shot Bathory - One Rode to Asa Bay Obituary - Chopped in Half Skinny Puppy - Spasmolytic

I pointed out that if incestuous couples should be prohibited from marrying/procreating because their offspring are at high risk of genetic disease, then non-incestuous couples whose offspring are similarly at risk must also be prohibited. If you subscribe to one premise and not the other then I...

I'm sorry, you seem to have misunderstood my post. I used the word "eugenics" in reference to the notion that all high-risk people ought to be restricted from breeding, but your post doesn't address that point at all. Allow me give you a concrete example: Women with a mutation to the BRCA1...

I'm nopt comfortable with this argument because it seems to follow from it that other high risk groups (people with heritable diseases, women over the age of 40, etc) shouldn't be allowed to procreate. It's pretty eugenics-y.

I don't understand why "all men are created equal" is a universal statement. A lot of people in India, for example, would disagree.