But listen, epistemologically, you’ll encounter the is-ought problem, and without taking an “objective judge” into consideration morality will always be fought by corrupt scholars.

You literally ignored the entire point behind my previous comment. You don’t need to establish an “objective judge” because the traditional ideas of morality are already observable as an optimal strategy to go through life, and we can observe it via experimentation.

I don’t get why you insist on a nonsensical rant instead of just letting the other person have the last word when they prove you wrong. And at this point, I don’t care. You’re not worth wasting anymore time on. If you insist on sticming your head in the sand and ignore reality, then go ahead, but you’re not going to be bothering me with it because you’re getting blocked. Tata

The data for the participants relies on mailed questionnaires for lifestyle and medical status

Wtf. We already know this isn’t good nutrition science. It’s all to easy for people to misrepresent what they’re eating in sirveys

This sounds like an epidemiological study. What are the listed Relative Risk Increases for mortality they’re trying to claim? Are any about 100%, which is the minimum threshold required to establish causality for epidemiological studies?

Not only that, the only sources of refined sugars they show here are all listed as healthier than red meat. Really? Refined sugar, the leading cause of diabetes and atherosclerosis isn’t at the bottom of the list?

This study reeks of bullshit. Which is unfortunately not all that weird in nutrition science ever since the Harvard School of Nutrition got bought out by Coca Cola and sugar lobbies back in the 50’s

As a country though we’re making the choice to prioritise lives over convenience, as we often do. And for that I am happy.

Except restricting gun ownership isn’t necessary for that. The motivations for gun crimes are the same as any violent crime, in that they’re largely done out of desperation. Because of that, your best way to reduce gun crime is to reduce violent crime, which is done by improving people economic conditions: nationalize healthcare, have strong workers rights, properly tax the wealthy, improve environmental quality.

As you can probably tell, the US really sucks at what I described, hence the higher rates of violence. What’s frustrating is that Europe did fix them, but also restricted access to guns and continually (and incorrectly) points to that as the reason they have little violent crime.

Also, another thing to note is that a lot of gun control proponents tend to point solely to “gun crime” not “violent crime”. That’s disingenuous because they’re only looking at the methods, not the actual motivations

And how can I talk about objective morality without God?

Here it is! Here it fucking is! The single most overused thought-terminating fallacy that Jesus nuts like to pull out!

The answer to your question is that we don’t need a deity to declare what objective right and wrong are. We can use game theory. If you want to watch an admittedly better explanation of it, Veritasium made a video on it last year, but I’ll recap it below.

Decades ago, researchers set up an experiment where they paired various algorithms against each other, with each algorithm having different rules for approaching the prisoner dillema. And each pairing went on for hundreds of turns. Then the researchers tallied up all the scores. Thry noticed that almost all of the “nice” algorithms scored higher then almost all of the “mean” algorithms. And they redid the experiment multiple times with tweaks to the experiment, like randomizing the length of interactions between algorithms.

The overall rules that caused this highest scores were:

1. Start off picking the option to cooperate
2. After the first exchange, respond in the same way they were treated in the first round
3. A decision to not cooperate only affects the next decision, it doesn’t continuously affect every decision after that
4. On rare occasions (<10%), cooperate on the next turn even if the other algorithm chose to not cooperate.

Essentially it boils down to being polite, treating others how you wish to be treated, and being forgiving past transgressions. Strangely similar to what religions tend to teach, right?

It turns out, these are actually emergent properties that appear in any system where you have series of interactions between individuals. It’s not divine provenance, it’s natural selection.

I swear automation is taking the soul out of eating out.

Goddamn fleshlights are ruining everything!

Honestly, what I find frustrating is that even if a private seller wanted to run a background check, they can’t. Only FFL’s can do that. I think the ATF needs to open it up so more people can run them.

Don’t you mean “why do you need that many guns, you gun nut?”

I’ve seen this argument used in the context that the average gun owner in the US owns 2-3 guns. For context, that’s not the number of guns in the US per citizen, it’s the number per gun owner.

The person complaining was saying that nobody needs more than 1 gun. This is a good example of non-gun owners getting reactionary because they don’t know what they’re talking about. What if someone owns a rifle, shotgun, and a pistol? That’s 3 guns, all of which serve very different purposes.

Plus a lot of people don’t seem to factor in that sport shooting is a thing. Personally, I regularly take a dynamics class, where you go through a variety of scenarios where you’re moving between positions while shooting. There’s also competition formats that do this too.

Not only that, people don’t seem to understand that competition guns and everday carry guns are usually fairly different too. Much like how I wouldn’t want to drive a Lamborghini to pick up groceries or haul a trailer, I generally wouldn’t want to use a Sig P365 (a concealed carry gun) for a competition.

That signature American bloodthirst

Ah, yes, because it was clearly Americans that perpetrated the French and Bolshevik revolutions

The smart ones just take the product out of the packaging and leave it on the shelf somewhere.

Wait, so they take packaging but not the item? Weird.

/s

Not really, and that’s extrapolating from God’s words

1: No it isn’t. And even if it was, why should anyone care? The bible says that mixing linen and wool fibers or eating shellfish is a sin. A lot of the rules in the bible are made up bullshit.

2: Don’t bring religion into this

It gets really tiring watching people pretend like background checks don’t exist. There is no brick-and-mortar store where you can walk in, pay and walk out with a gun 5 minutes later no questions asked.

And that’s doubly so for online orders. Those have to get transferred to a local FFL who go through the background check when you pick it up

And who cares? A lot of people in the trades make more than even engineers. Who cares if someone acts like you’re uneducated when you’re earning 3x as much as them and they have to call you to get stuff fixed.

I makes 0 sense to go 6 figures inti debt to get an arts degree just to later become a barista at Starbucks or an HR rep. And that discrimination won’t end until people start bucking the trend

No, the problem is that too many people were pushed to get degrees that don’t lead to a career path, and go into debt to do so. It’s caused non-specific degrees to be worthless by oversaturation.

You don’t need a bachelor’s for philosophy or history. Go read books or take online courses if you’re interested, but do so alongside learning skills for a career. You can make a lot of money in the trades, and it doesn’t prevent you from learning more for your own enjoyment

Fabric softener isn’t going to kill your towels’ absorbancy with a single wash. You’d have to use fabric softener every wash for an extended period of time to achieve that

While it might actually end up going that way, I don’t think that’s a deliberate play. The tech bros and C-suite execs tend to be sociopathic dumbasses. I think they’re legitimately just loading themselves up with tons of debt just to buy hardware to capture market share thinking that things could never collapsed on them.

You wrote a post with a title that their comment helps with,

Post titles just aren’t great at detailing the real issue when you need to provide context. It’s frustrating whem someone doesn’t actually read the body of the post, because then the comments can be filled up with people answering the wrong question. Then someone that can actually answer the question might skip the post because there’s already a bunch of comments under it.

If you’re going to help, it’s better to actually read through the provided context. Otherwise it’s more likely to just end up being self-gratification.

It’s kinda like the people who give up right-of-way at stop signs. Sure, it makes that person feel better about themselves, but the confusion just leads to everyone at the stop taking longer to get through the intersection.

Read the rest of my post, asshole. I was asking about server cluster software.

This type of pointless snark is something I’d expect from hexbear, not blahaj

I wasn’t asking for recommendations for chat servers