I'm really glad to hear that there's no problems in Canada at all, and all those tent cities must be gone, everyone's able to afford enough food to eat, and personal debt is at all time lows!
Wait... If what she said is true then only one witness is required to prove the fact that the 2020 election was stolen...
Trump's off the hook, boys!
Trump's off the hook, boys!
That's clever. Took me a minute for the double meaning to hit (assuming it was intentional)
It’s interesting, there’s 2 times you can learn about who someone really is: Make things hard and take away their power, or make things easy and give them power.
You never know, people who are really good in one circumstance are really bad in the other or vice versa. You see it though, people who were decent when they were poor or even when things were normal; give them an ounce of power over others and suddenly they become tyrants. It’s an easy thing to fall into, especially when you have never been trained in the exercise of power and you think that once you have power you have a duty to use it early and often.
In such I think you can see where a guilt based ethic is so important -- having a good internal model of what a good and just person looks like and striving to be that person. Most people would look at a tyrant from outside a system and go "obviously that's the bad guy, he's abusing his power and harming others in the process", but if they end up in such a situation themselves they may be too concerned with chasing a theoretical ideal or some other piece of the puzzle rather than the holistic view of whether you're still a person you can look in the mirror and be proud of.
You never know, people who are really good in one circumstance are really bad in the other or vice versa. You see it though, people who were decent when they were poor or even when things were normal; give them an ounce of power over others and suddenly they become tyrants. It’s an easy thing to fall into, especially when you have never been trained in the exercise of power and you think that once you have power you have a duty to use it early and often.
In such I think you can see where a guilt based ethic is so important -- having a good internal model of what a good and just person looks like and striving to be that person. Most people would look at a tyrant from outside a system and go "obviously that's the bad guy, he's abusing his power and harming others in the process", but if they end up in such a situation themselves they may be too concerned with chasing a theoretical ideal or some other piece of the puzzle rather than the holistic view of whether you're still a person you can look in the mirror and be proud of.
Who can forget the vegan guy with superpowers? (not a shoop, why would you say that?)
If you ever see me drop some 5 paragraph 6000 character essay on you...
Don't worry about it. It's just kinda my thing.
Don't worry about it. It's just kinda my thing.
No, Canada's got some serious problems to face with respect to the implementation of MAID. Stories that are morally reprehensible to anyone with an ounce of good in their conscience.
It's good to allow terminally ill people to get help to stop their suffering. One longstanding family friend had terminal cancer and instead of having to suffer through a long and pointless treatment that would inevitably end in death, he was able to choose the day and go in and end things before the last tragic steps.
On the other hand, there's a lot of really morally repugnant stories that came out of the MAID program. For some monsterous bureaucrats it became the first choice instead of the absolute last resort; It became something being pushed for by the state instead of a freedom afforded to individuals.
In one case, A paralympic athlete asked for a chair lift for their house and was referred to MAID.
https://aleteia.org/2022/12/07/disabled-canadian-veteran-says-she-was-offered-suicide-in-lieu-of-chair-lift/
In another case, a veteran with PTSD was offered MAID instead of help.
https://nypost.com/2022/08/22/canadian-soldier-with-ptsd-outraged-when-va-suggested-euthanasia/
In yet another case, someone applied for MAID not because of their medical conditions but because they couldn't get help with living costs, and they went through with it -- the woman who applied for MAID on the grounds of potential poverty is dead now, successfully killed by the state.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/may/11/canada-cases-right-to-die-laws
Only under strong public backlash did the ruling coalition choose to delay plans to allow people to kill themselves solely for mental health reasons.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/maid-mental-illness-health-1.7101021
Once the state killing you legally is on the table, that's something that has to be treated with the most serious gravity, and moral weight, and the present ruling coalition lacks the moral foundation to be making such calls.
It's good to allow terminally ill people to get help to stop their suffering. One longstanding family friend had terminal cancer and instead of having to suffer through a long and pointless treatment that would inevitably end in death, he was able to choose the day and go in and end things before the last tragic steps.
On the other hand, there's a lot of really morally repugnant stories that came out of the MAID program. For some monsterous bureaucrats it became the first choice instead of the absolute last resort; It became something being pushed for by the state instead of a freedom afforded to individuals.
In one case, A paralympic athlete asked for a chair lift for their house and was referred to MAID.
https://aleteia.org/2022/12/07/disabled-canadian-veteran-says-she-was-offered-suicide-in-lieu-of-chair-lift/
In another case, a veteran with PTSD was offered MAID instead of help.
https://nypost.com/2022/08/22/canadian-soldier-with-ptsd-outraged-when-va-suggested-euthanasia/
In yet another case, someone applied for MAID not because of their medical conditions but because they couldn't get help with living costs, and they went through with it -- the woman who applied for MAID on the grounds of potential poverty is dead now, successfully killed by the state.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/may/11/canada-cases-right-to-die-laws
Only under strong public backlash did the ruling coalition choose to delay plans to allow people to kill themselves solely for mental health reasons.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/maid-mental-illness-health-1.7101021
Once the state killing you legally is on the table, that's something that has to be treated with the most serious gravity, and moral weight, and the present ruling coalition lacks the moral foundation to be making such calls.
How are we supposed to fill our universities with people who pay full price and our cities with people lying to banks to take out million dollar loans if we do that?
https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/the-phrase-no-evidence-is-a-red-flag
This is a good article.
One of the dumbest things we've seen not just from science media but from media in general is this phrase "no evidence"
I have a rock here, and I claim that this rock will cause you to become a millionaire if you hold it.
So you start a double-blind study to prove it or disprove it.
Guess what? If your sample size is large enough, *someone* is going to become a millionaire by pure dumb luck. Whether you like it or not, that's evidence. It's poor evidence, it's overwhemingly contradicted by more, but guess what? There is evidence that holding the rock will cause you to become a millionaire!
It seems pedantic, but when people say there's zero evidence for something, and exactly one evidence shows up, then that claim that there's zero evidence is automatically refuted! Even if it's something that everyone agrees is false.
This is a good article.
One of the dumbest things we've seen not just from science media but from media in general is this phrase "no evidence"
I have a rock here, and I claim that this rock will cause you to become a millionaire if you hold it.
So you start a double-blind study to prove it or disprove it.
Guess what? If your sample size is large enough, *someone* is going to become a millionaire by pure dumb luck. Whether you like it or not, that's evidence. It's poor evidence, it's overwhemingly contradicted by more, but guess what? There is evidence that holding the rock will cause you to become a millionaire!
It seems pedantic, but when people say there's zero evidence for something, and exactly one evidence shows up, then that claim that there's zero evidence is automatically refuted! Even if it's something that everyone agrees is false.
The same also happened in the 2000 election where it was claimed the results were not legitimate because the supreme court decided a case in favor of the winner, and in the 2004 election voting machines were a specific focus of claiming they were rigged favor of the winner.
While there was some shady stuff with respect to the 2020 election that there's strong evidence for(such as the odd behavior in some jurisdictions with election observers and other oddities), I suspect the 2020 election was won legitimately by a wall to wall propaganda campaign for 4 years that never stopped for one second and relied on all kinds of favors being called in from the media. It worked, but the media itself is paying a heavy price now.
While there was some shady stuff with respect to the 2020 election that there's strong evidence for(such as the odd behavior in some jurisdictions with election observers and other oddities), I suspect the 2020 election was won legitimately by a wall to wall propaganda campaign for 4 years that never stopped for one second and relied on all kinds of favors being called in from the media. It worked, but the media itself is paying a heavy price now.
The "phobic" suffix for forms of hate is frustrating to me because it's just another example of jargon whose literal meaning is objectively wrong, employed to make stuff more complicated.
You can hate something without fearing it, and you can fear something without hating it. In fact, you can fear something and that makes you leave it alone completely.
I'm afraid of bees (cause I'm a wimp), so if I see one I try to give it a wide berth and stay out of its way so it can do its thing and I can do mine.
You can hate something without fearing it, and you can fear something without hating it. In fact, you can fear something and that makes you leave it alone completely.
I'm afraid of bees (cause I'm a wimp), so if I see one I try to give it a wide berth and stay out of its way so it can do its thing and I can do mine.
If he can he should for sure. I'm not sure zelensky would be willing but if he is, great. Win/win. Especially coming after the Putin interview we could see a strong defense of Ukraine based on ln countering Putin's specific points. Given that the Russian federation is not the Soviet Union is not the Russian empire, it seems like a strong argument can be made against his historical arguments at the very least.
Honestly I feel like implementing braille is often just a virtue signal. Even among blind people only a tiny number can read it, and if you can't tell the giant yellow and green button exists how would you even know to touch the one tiny spot with braille on it?
My grandmother was totally blind, her optic nerve was damaged by scarlet fever. There's a lot of assumptions built into this button that are more likely than not to be wrong.
My grandmother was totally blind, her optic nerve was damaged by scarlet fever. There's a lot of assumptions built into this button that are more likely than not to be wrong.
Interestingly, we know now that sitting to close to a thing and staring at it for hours actually does ruin your eyes. There's a direct correlation between people who study more and near sightedness. That's been proven out in similar populations with different lifestyles where the group that spends hours staring at something close to their faces get myopia at a much higher rate than those who don't.