thebestaquaman

Wait? You’re saying that China using its trade power to pressure/coerce Norway, Sweden and Latvia independently and on separate occasions within the past decade is propaganda from the 70’s? The people making that propaganda must have been prescient!

Best I can do is three fiddy :/

Awake people can preemptively consent to being woken up however they like. Source: I have actively requested and enjoyed being woken up like this. Not an edit: I REALLY hate it when other people try to tell me what I can and cannot consent to, so this personally grinds my gears.

They go through the same hole as the mouth in the end, though. Yes, but they’re distinct openings, which means we’re not topologically equivalent to a doughnut when you take them into account. Topological equivalence implies that you can transform one object into another without changing the number of openings. Classic example is a doughnut and a coffee mug (the handle of a coffee mug is the opening). A human would be equivalent to a doughnut with two holes poked through the side into the middle.

Two more out the nose

To be absolutely fair: “Shot down” usually means the pilot was either killed, or had to bail, and that the jet crashed uncontrollably into the ground and was completely destroyed. It’s pretty common to differentiate between “shot down” and “hit, but was able to land”.

Am I the only person that’s extremely put off (and in a way intrigued) by Americans hang up with “race”. Like, even the fact that there are “official” races is very strange to me. In my country we absolutely operate with a concept of “ethnicity”, but that’s not set in stone, and is a kind of mix of “where do your ancestors come from”, “what is your phenotype”, and “what culture do you identify with”. The idea of having a “race” that is set in stone and that people actually care about is pretty absurd to me.

Even with steel pipes you get problems with hydrogen embrittlement because hydrogen diffuses into the steel and can cause it to crack.

I don’t interpret this in either of the ways you suggest. I interpret the image as a whole as ironic: OP is paraphrasing people that claim “Russia bombing people is bad, but the US bombing people is good, and by the way Israel is above all criticism and you’re an antisemite for suggesting otherwise”, and pointing out the hypocrisy in that claim. I think OP is against wars of aggression in general, and is pointing out that the US and Israel are behaving the same way as Russia when they go bombing people “preemptively”, and that being the aggressor in a war is always bad, regardless of who you are.

I guess it should be accepted in the sense that “my neighbour Bob” is a completely valid source, while at the same time being an utterly unreliable one. People often confuse the two, but I think GPT falls in the same category as “pulled it out of my ass” in terms of reliability and citation validity.

You’re just clearly not interested in having a reasonable discussion about what I consider to be an interesting topic, and appear more interested in attacking me over opinions I don’t have, and positions I haven’t defended. I’m not really interested in being talked down to be someone that appears to be wilfully misinterpreting me, so I’m probably just going to leave this comment section now.

It’s actually absurd to me that you’re able to read that out of my comment. I’m literally asking whether we have a moral obligation to use the technology available to us to prevent cancer, ALS, Alzheimer’s, compromised immune systems, metabolic diseases, and fragile backs in our future children. I even specifically stated that this wasn’t about whether the same technology can be used for nefarious purposes, which is a different discussion entirely.

But that doesn’t answer the question of whether we are morally obliged to use it for good purposes when possible. It’s just a different point entirely.

I’m not saying that this kind of thing cannot be used for bad purposes. I’m asking the philosophical question of where our moral obligation to do everything we can to give our children the best possible life begins. Should we let them be born “as is”, and then have a moral obligation to do everything we can to make the best of whatever genetic baggage they have, or should we do whatever is in our power even before they’re born to give them a better shot at a good life? Explosives have caused enormous amounts of death, but also allowed enormous amounts of people to live in safer, more affordable houses, and have been critical for mineral extraction that essentially makes modern society possible, as well as modern transportation infrastructure. Explosives, like most technology, aren’t an inherently “evil” thing, even though they’re used for bad purposes.

We're not just talking about autism here though. We're talking about hereditary diseases, maybe a bad back, extreme allergies, etc. Their point is that if we had the technology to prevent our future child from carrying all sorts of genetic burdens (exposure to cancer, compromised immune system, terrible eyesight...) wouldn't it be immoral to not use that technology?