Falling3

14 ms·

271.
by Falling3 7y ago
Requiring people to pay for the opportunity to vote is effectively a poll tax. I don't understand anyone trying to argue against this in good faith.
272.
by Falling3 7y ago
Poll taxes are expressly forbidden by the 24th Amendment. I'm sure people will try and make arguments based on the 2nd Amendment, but they're really not comparable.
273.
by Falling3 7y ago
The question wasn't what pay was deserved for a _good CEO_. It was whether a a raise was deserved simply by being a CEO. And the fact you're pointing out - such a large difference in results between a good and bad CEO - points to
274.
by Falling3 7y ago
Verizon
275.
by Falling3 7y ago
$2.99 for me. Not a huge cost, but certainly frustrating considering the non-existent burden to the provider.
276.
by Falling3 7y ago
It's neither a theory nor conspiracy. This is how the American justice system (and in particular the police) is structured.
277.
by Falling3 7y ago
Yes, _asserting_ something is possible is an assertion. And if your only intention was really to just point out the possibility of it and not suggest it as a likely alternative, you're not adding anything to the conversation. But it se
278.
by Falling3 7y ago
First, the Naturalistic Fallacy is a more specific version of Appeal to Nature focused specifically of moral claims rather than just "goodness". But you knew the point, so I'm sure why you felt the need to attempt a correctio
279.
by Falling3 7y ago
Sure, it's _possible_. But we absolutely no evidence that it happens based on what we know (albeit very little) about the subject. And we have good reasons to believe it's not happening: plants lack the brain structures and proces
280.
by Falling3 7y ago
That's a Naturalistic Fallacy. You can justify just about any behavior (theft, murder, rape) by the same reasoning that other animals do it.
281.
by Falling3 7y ago
"Kind of like how eggs are so cheap because they are a natural byproduct of the chicken meat industry [...]" That has nothing to do with why eggs are cheap. Completely separate breeds are raised for eggs vs meat. The birds used fo
282.
by Falling3 7y ago
If you honestly believe the harming/killing of animals and plants are equivalent, come by my place later. I've got some hedges in my front yard and a dog. I'll get out the hedge clippers and we can demonstrate there's no
283.
by Falling3 7y ago
I talk to a lot of people about animal products in our food and the treatment of those animals. In my experience, I really disagree that we're talking about the same phenomenon.
284.
by Falling3 7y ago
It's not acceptable in my experience. People are just ignorant to the fact that this is an ingredient.
285.
by Falling3 7y ago
Is that really a problem? People tend to vastly overestimate our protein needs.
286.
by Falling3 7y ago
"When camping, I enjoy pegging the guys" can also have a wildly different (sexual) meaning.
287.
by Falling3 7y ago
That's a great point. And that combined with the cryptic nature of many error messages could easily make debugging a nightmare for people who don't speak English...
288.
by Falling3 7y ago
It's also a very common food ingredient.
289.
by Falling3 7y ago
This is a big step, but don't forget that commercial layers are also slaughtered very young after egg production wanes.
290.
by Falling3 7y ago
If I were the parent I would've phrased that differently. But, as long as we're being pedantic, eating from plants is possible without killing the organism.
291.
by Falling3 7y ago
For the sake of the planet and animals, I'm thrilled with the fact Beyond is focusing on animal product replacements.
292.
by Falling3 7y ago
Uhoh. I'm 14 years in. Surely I'm just a very confused ghost at this point?
293.
by Falling3 7y ago
That applies to the former half of your comment, which I didn't find that unlikely. What about the latter half?
294.
by Falling3 7y ago
I should have clarified - _scientific sources_, not an advertisement for a face gym.
295.
by Falling3 7y ago
Do you have any sources for that claim?
296.
by Falling3 7y ago
We don't accept that as an argument for the morality of an action any other time. Why do you think it applies to discussions of our treatment of animals?
297.
by Falling3 7y ago
Sure it's a thing for a reason... the reason is guys who are into body lifting that was an easy source of calories and protein. It has nothing to do with your narrative.
298.
by Falling3 7y ago
> It seems pretty unnecessary. Most of the things we spend most of our time on are, strictly speaking, unnecessary.
299.
by Falling3 7y ago
Except straws make up less than a percent of ocean plastic, while almost half is fishing gear. Fishing is destroying the ocean for that and several other reasons. Even if we're wildly successful and completely outlaw straws and a dozen
300.
by Falling3 7y ago
Agreed... particularly ironic since the author says: "[...] we have no idea what nutrition costs. We needed a way to value food.", but then goes on to discuss nothing other than protein and calories.

More ›