SkyeStarfall

half life times log2(amount of atoms), right?

This literally reads like a child's homework assignment to "write about your hero" lmao

Oh wow, so we're finally getting there with genetically modifying and replicating internal organs in medicine?

That is, indeed, amazing news

And yet, Democrats tend to overperform on polls

America is cooked

Or you attach the balloons to each other

Or, better yet, one BIG balloon!!!

...what do you mean this already exists

Too many people live in willful ignorance

You can see the obvious big picture and scream from the rooftops, but everyone who is comfortable enough and in denial that things are actually that bad straight up just ignore you

It's only now that people are starting to get their wakeup calls, like a lot of Europe, for example

But god, if it isn't super frustrating to watch the local news in my European country and have politicians repeatedly say "nobody thought we would be standing here talking about this 4 years ago"

I did, fuckers! I did!! The fascist threat was obvious ever since the first trump presidency, and the trends could clearly be seen from even before then, however, I was a child at that time

I don't get it. Especially because politicians are supposed to be the experts in trends like this. Is everyone just fucking clueless??

I swear most people are just so neoliberal ideology brained, and heavily struggle seeing anything outside of that. It's been a massive failure on the part of society that political philosophy has not been a bigger part of the education curriculum. Or part of it, at all.

"Quisling" is another good one

No, that is not the direct equivalence. The direct equivalence for 2. Would be something like

"But then they insist that being naked is never acceptable and is grotesque, and anyone that disagrees is a gross pervert"

That's where the inconsistency comes from

But "constructing better morals" is by itself a non-relativist statement. How can you say there are "better morals" when you follow moral relativism, which states that there is no universal set of moral principles? In other words, that morals are not comparable with each-other?

It's not the same thing as accepting that different cultures have different set of morals, but whether some things are simply more moral than others, or not. For example, saying that slavery is always bad, and should never be allowed, is an absolutist moral statement.

But the point is that, if you follow moral relativism (which the hypothetical students in the post do, as they insist morality is relative), then you must acquiesce that cultures which hate queer people are valid and acceptable, because doing otherwise would not be moral relativism. Or, take another example, slavery. Is it okay for any culture to practice slavery?

And if you don't agree that it is valid and acceptable on a philosophical level, well, you can just follow a form moral universalism. Which is more appropriate if you do think some sets of morals are simply more ethical than others, such as, for example, not allowing slavery

It's not so much about whether different moral standards exist or not, but more whether different standards for morals in and of themselves are acceptable/ethical.

The cost of living crisis is global. Exploitation of labour is global. Everything for profit's sake is global. Climate action being hampered due to corporate interests is global. Wealth inequality rising is global.

What's the alternative? Continuing as we have so far? Doesn't seem to have worked out so great.

I feel like, if the world survives a fascist USA, everyone else is going to demand massive reforms in the USA to ensure this won't happen again