LOGIC💣

The sad thing is that people don’t even argue points. I wish people who lacked knowledge and wisdom would argue. Instead, they just rebroadcast whatever propaganda they were fed most recently, untroubled by anything like critical thinking or introspection, and mostly unchallenged by their peers.

I suspect that the louder a person talks, the more likely they are clueless about the topic.

Just because they’re man-made distinctions doesn’t mean that they cannot be discussed or don’t have beginnings.

What’s not funny is that Elon Musk is CEO of a space travel company and what you’re describing he’s doing is almost the same thing that caused HAL 9000 to go insane in 2001: A Space Odyssey.

That’s the real reason they kept losing their extremities.

Also, it goes without saying that tons of competent people work at Microsoft, despite OP saying exactly the opposite.

If she thinks that depression is just an excuse for laziness, then what’s her excuse for her laziness?

It is simple, if not trivial, to go look up what depression means, for example, on Wikipedia. She hasn’t done this, and we know that because her understanding of depression doesn’t match the actual definition, so her opinion on depression stems from her laziness.

She implies that other people’s laziness is a bad thing, so why does she think it’s okay for her to express such laziness and lazy opinions?

One option is to speak like him, but choose to remain mute for the rest of your life.

Alternatively, if you looked like him, you could simply never show your face in public again.

Now we just need these laws worldwide.

I think “mediocre” in this context would be mediocre to most people.

I think you cannot ask about something subjective without getting people’s personal opinions. If you ask about an aspect of a mediocre thing, then you can expect at least some debate about what counts as mediocre, and probably none of the people’s answers will be correct.

For me, a “mediocre” movie would be something that I would only watch again if a friend wanted to watch it, but if it was just an option and I got to choose, I’d never choose it. But if it was just “on”, I might not change the channel. Let’s see, like The Rock directed by Michael Bay.

And then there are “bad” movies that I wouldn’t watch even if I had a friend who wanted to see it, like any other Michael Bay movie that I’ve seen. Armageddon had pretty good music, but it wasn’t mediocre. It was bad.

I might have a strange definition of mediocre, but basically, I think that if I had seen the movie once, and then I decide it’s worth watching again, then somehow it must not be mediocre. I’ve seen Spawn several times.

If Spawn counts as a mediocre movie with good music, then you’d think Flash Gordon would be in the same category. But I don’t think either of those movies are mediocre.

I see what you’re saying, that there are two cases. One where the ends is the goal of the person who used the means, and one where the ends is not the goal of the person who used the means. I only mentioned the latter in my comment.

But from my perspective, if the stabber purely intended to uncover cancer, and for some reason they actually had the expertise and knowledge to know that that specific person had cancer, and this was somehow the only way to prove it, then the action itself is inherently altruistic. From my perspective, it wouldn’t be less altruistic even if the person turned out not to have cancer. So, I don’t think it would count as the ends justifying the means.

If the same stabber, with the same expertise and knowledge, actually had multiple ways of achieving the ends, like they could have talked about it rather than stabbing, but they chose the stabbing route, then I think you can’t say that the stabbing was justified, regardless of whether the cancer was discovered.

There may be other cases worth digging into. I’m sure there are lots of examples I didn’t think of, but I’d be surprised if they were convincing to me. The reason is that, my experience has taught me that good ends are most predictably the results of just and informed actions.

I think lots of people believe that the ends can justify the means.

But to me, that expression means the same thing as, “Whatever causes a good outcome must not be bad.” And I not only disagree with it, I don’t even think it makes sense.

I heard a story about a guy who was stabbed in a mugging and during surgery for the stabbing, found out that he had cancer, which saved his life.

But nobody is going to go to the judge during the mugger’s trial, and say that his decision to stab the guy was “justified,” and so he should be released to stab again with his completely justified stabbing history.

No, the things that are justifiable are those which are good and informed actions. You can’t justify bad or ignorant actions simply because of luck.

Ahh. I was going to say that sometimes, urban areas can be safer than rural areas. And then I realized that you probably have a typo. You said “so you would rather live” but I think you meant “so if you would rather live”.

fancy cabinet

Maybe this is the old man in me talking, but every time I’ve had any sort of lighting in my PC or RGB in my mouse, for example, it’s just been distracting. Nobody but me ever even looks at my PC, and now, every time I see a fancy cabinet, it just looks like an eyesore to me.

Let’s see if the rats want to play global thermonuclear war.

I don’t wish to make too many tangential top-level comments, so I am declaring this the tangential thread, but all I can think of is that America is on a path where someday we’ll also have journalists who will literally have to choose between the truth and their own safety. We already have so many who choose lies over the truth when their safety is not questioned.

steganography markers

On top of everything else, this isn’t even the correct term, nor does its meaning match the sentiment you wish to convey.

America was founded on the concept of no taxation without representation.