agamemnonymous

I see an "am" but no "I". This has to be missing words

Yeah, because being at all critical about active complicity in the worst crimes against humanity possible is the same as advocating for fascism!

It's called marketing. There's a time and a place for criticism, a close race between bad and worse is not that time, online leftist spaces are not that place. Every leftist voter who chooses to abstain contributes to the fascists' margin.

And I'm equally sure that nobody stayed home because even the lesser evil refused to listen to the vast majority of the people they're supposed to represent. That's not at ALL something that could suppress voter participation

The difference is that you don't control the DNC's strategy, you do control your actions.

Welp

"How do I know you won't use my techniques to become bad hackerman to hack your competitors? Sorry, I'm a professional"

So? Just because someone chooses not to follow the reason, that doesn't make the reason invalid. If anything you're only proving the failures of a passion-driven ethical model, if the psychopath's passion is inflicting pain there's nothing to keep them from behaving unethically.

It is the logical extension of noticing the similarities between yourself and others, and noticing that you do not enjoy pain. It's certainly not mathematically rigorous, but it follows from simple reasoning nonetheless. If you wanted to be rigorous, you can't even claim that you don't like pain, only that you haven't liked specific instances of pain in the past. Some estimations are necessary for a functioning framework of any kind, including ethics.

That probably has a lot to do with it. Doubling the workforce let's employers be way pickier.

1. I am a sentient creature that feels pain and pleasure

2. Others appear to be sentient creatures that feel pain and pleasure

3. Pain is bad, so I should avoid inflicting it

You don't need empathy as an axiom to derive it rationally

I disagree. Reason can take you there by virtue of justice or equality.

No? Once reason restricts passion, the hierarchy collapses. An action that causes yourself mild pain, but pleasure of greater extent to others, is preferable to an action that causes many others pain even if it gives you pleasure personally. Reason demands you restrain yourself from the passions that would harm others. That's not unilateral fealty. Axioms must be assumed, but the most powerful systems assume as few as possible, and leave most of the legwork to reason.

how badly could a pelican fuck me up in a fight?

DISCLAIMER - I am not planning on fighting a pelican.

there's a brown pelican that hangs out...

Poetry.

Actually, wait...

how badly could a

pelican fuck me up in

a fight? DISCLAIMER

.

I am not planning

on fighting a pelican.

There's a brown peli-

They look so incredibly practical. It's so function-driven, I love it.