That a disingenuous reply at best, the choice is clearly “person doesn’t do enough to help your people” vs “person who actively allows great harm to your people”.
The example could probably have done with being gender neutral, but even so.
I’m not sure why you zeroed in on the female part and not the “doesn’t do enough to help your people” part.
As i said, i don’t disagree in principle.
All i was saying in that response was that inaction should also be factored in to any consideration of morality.
I don’t disagree in principle.
Lets take your scenario of not voting for fascist-lite as a means to fight against Full-Fat fascist.
In the current American system ( the greatest and most functional system /s), not voting effectively gives the vote to the eventual victor (that’s reductive but you know what I mean)
Assuming the BigFash win, the choice of inaction would be more impactful than the action of voting for DietFash.
On a relative scale and depending on how you feel about fascism I suppose.
So yes the participation and outcome matter but the effect isn’t always equal.
Inactively participating in the rise of the GrandMasterFash would be the cost of feeling good about not actively voting for the LesserFash.
Ultimately it’s shit choices all around, but that’s the point of the lesser of two evils, right?
Inaction when action is an option is still a choice.
One of the major premises of the trolley problem is the choice.
It’s very specifically a scenario where everything is a choice.
The only way to not choose a scenario option is to not participate at all.
If you are forced to use “lite” rather than normal ublock origin then you’ve probably already lost this fight because you’re in a browser that forces manifest v3 extensions only.
So you get crippled ad-blockers (by design).
Depends on how debilitating it is, if its bad enough, therapy might be a useful option.
Body dysmorphia about weight might need a bit more help than you can give as an individual.
It might not meet the criteria for that, but worth consideration.
Edit: to clarify, dysmorphia like this is where the brain refuses to acknowledge the relatively objective reality of a “normal” weight.
It’s often one of the underlying causes of bulimia/anorexia and the converse.
I think you meant to reply to the other person.
If you’ll notice I mention the biggest offenders and/or the the underlying management infrastructure.
Private jet owners getting systematically luigi’d would also fall under that remit, I was just using data centres as an example.
Oil rigs, Nestlé, blackrock etc would also all work , with varying degrees of efficacy and difficulty.
To address your argument directly, before you get all preachy think of the actual consequences of major data centres going down, all the critical infrastructure running on said data centres would also go down.
That’s air traffic control, shipping and logistics ,and yes, agriculture; any system relying on cloud services running in those data centres
If you pick the right ones and do it properly (a competently executed strategy, if you will) then you could cripple most industries, with all the consequences that brings.
Just to be clear you are saying you didn’t provide a claim of truth with no supporting argument because, and I quote
what i said were all truth claims.
no argument at all is needed.
I know you aren’t going to understand how your reply doesn’t make sense but if in the future you come back to this , this kind of thing is what people call mental gymnastics.
It kinda feels like punching down at this point so I’ll leave you be.
Point to the advocation.
Edit: changed my mind, no need, see my other reply , good luck.
Indeed, but the definition does, I don’t care at all about this hill, but not being able to understand the application of the definition of words is going to make conversations difficult for you.
I would assume a competently executed strategy of eliminating the worst offenders (and/or the managing infrastructure thereof) would probably have more impact, they probably meant legal things though.
For instance, a solo campaign of taking out the biggest data centers would probably work. Difficult though.
Stating something is true with no supporting argument other than “I said so” followed by some shaky(at best) logic doesn’t leave much in the way of conversation points.
But lets give it a go.
Firstly there was no demand or proposal for any demographic to partake in the activity mentioned.
Secondly, assuming the first point wasn’t true, by your rationale there would be no way to mention any activity without it being a suggestion that all current recipients must immediately perform said activity, which it patently ridiculous.
Thirdly, the suggestion that you are a best in class mental gymnast isn’t a thought terminating cliche, perhaps you could claim ad hominem but as I said before ,“I’m right, because reasons” doesn’t leave many conversational avenues open.
The rookie was the most blatant example for me and i was incredibly disappointed , because i like Nathan Fillion.
I heard it got less bootlicky later on but i never made it that far.
Sounds like you have an idea of what it means to you and are trying to foist that upon others.
The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
that’s a dictionary definition , top tier cherry picking though, congrats.
Having never owned a one i can’t say this with first-hand experience, but aren’t the issues with the cybertruck more to do with core design fuck ups.
To the point they wouldn’t really be considered “kinks” as much as critical design and safety flaws ?
Which law? in which place? at what time ?
Where it’s hosted? where it’s being accessed? the intermediate locations ?
Which license, is the license enforceable in this context? who decides if it is? what if there are conflicting decisions from different applications of law, who arbitrates?
Do you mean piracy in the maritime sense? or do you mean copyright infringement? perhaps trademark infringement? or intellectual property theft? based on which law in which geographic region ?
This isn’t even hyperbole, the things you are talking about have nuance and context, pretending they don’t is a failure of imagination or intentional trolling.
The law is the law in the very specific contexts in which it applies and is heavily open to interpretation and bias, which is (in theory) why trials and lawsuits exist.
Yeah, re-reading it myself , it was a weird example and that may have been where they were going with it.