Falling3

Why do you draw the line there? And that means you're okay with things like torture of animals and bestiality?

There's absolutely nothing that needs to be interpreted here. The article - and even the specific sentence you quoted - make it clear that its discussing the response to a user's actions and not the actions themselves. I'm not saying Trump did or did not break a rule, but neither did this article. You're completely inventing the notion that Trump's actions were discussed.

Unless you're locking these people up forever, giving them a timeout solves absolutely nothing. Evidence-based prevention and treatment are the clear answers. No one is claiming addiction isn't a problem. We just simple want to actually address the problem instead of enacting feel good measures that either fail to address the problem or actively make it worse.

Thanks - I was wondering why I remembered that information coming to light so much more recently.

Uhuh... which says absolutely nothing about what rules he broke. I'm not sure what part of that you're getting hung up on.

That does not say what you're claiming it does. The article is very clearly talking about the response to Trump:

> correct response should be "consistent with the rules that are applied to other users of its platform".

That's the entire focus of the article is a consistent response from Facebook. It makes absolutely no mention of the action that precipitated the response.

The drugs used for microdosing are not considered to form physical dependence. Nor have I ever heard of anyone become addicted to psychedelics. Is there a reason your response hinges on addiction?

> It's quite obvious he broke no actual rules, but it's interesting that Facebook's oversight board is actually willing to say so.

Where are you reading that? I see no reference to it in the linked article.

> Can a computer play chess? No. > They search through many permutation of board states and in a very dumb way merely select the decision path that leads to a winning one.

This is a perfect example of moving the goal posts. The objective was never to simulate a human playing chess.

I felt very out of place in my college CS classes. I picked up programming my freshman year and switched to CS from my original major. I was completely green while so many other students - what felt like a majority - had been programming for years and were already extremely familiar with many of the concepts and tools that I was just being introduced to. It was rough for me to feel like I was starting out at such a disadvantage.

How is that actually relevant though? Do your morals change when it comes to humans you cannot communicate with?

The problem is most people do not have a rational basis for the differences in the behaviors you outlined. The reasoning generally rests completely on logical fallacies.

Because of genetics or the fact that they were raised by religious parents?

One thing that I haven't seen mentioned yet is shelf-stability. Even if you love to cook, it's nice knowing you have a backup sitting in the pantry just in case you're feeling tired or don't have a chance to go shopping.

What country is that?

Sounds like a beautiful example of a false dichotomy.

At what point did the parent comment say how anyone should think? They presented counterarguments. Is that not allowed?

> [health problems are] why most people (84%) who adopts a vegan diet at some point in their lives, returns to eating meat and dairy again

How did you come to that conclusion and what data do you have to support it? The overwhelming majority of ex-vegans I know did so because of either convenience or missing specific foods.

It's completely disingenuous to categorize statements like "the US tax code is too complex" and "Jews are starting forest fires with space lasers" both as just 'political opinions'.

> Why hold yourself to a higher standard than you hold the animals"

This cannot be how you approach morality. Animals routinely do horrific things to each other. Would you ever ask someone that question outside of a conversation on whom we kill to eat?

The original logo came out before Bezos stepped down.

This had absolutely nothing to do with the French population of North America. I'd ask if you were trying to have a good faith discussion, but the fact that you pretended the original comment was actually talking about cancelling potatoes answers that.

This is an extremely uncharitable reply. Where did anyone try and equate the suffering of animals and humans? Accusing your opponents of anthropomorphizing because of concern about non-human suffering is a ridiculous response. The fact that farm animals would not exist without our intervention has no bearing on what we owe them morally. Finally, one can work to alleviate the suffering of both humans and non-humans. Not only does one not preclude the other, but I find more often than not those working towards ending one are working towards ending the other.

We have a mini pig that lives with us. I think the parent's comment is vastly underestimating pigs. They're very sweet, empathetic animals.

I hear this kind of reasoning often, but I don't believe anyone is willing to apply it outside of food.

Yes, many non-human animals would eat you if given the opportunity. Some species of large cats might also kill you for amusement. Does that fact justify you doing the same? Many animals might try to copulate with you. Does that justify bestiality?

And if you're comfortable with moral arguments based on reciprocity, where does that leave humans such as babies? They certainly cannot extend any moral consideration to you, but I assume you're willing to overlook that?

The "fries" were not what were being canceled; the French were.

Then you're definitely old enough to remember them burning nikes and keurigs. How about their hatred of Starbucks for being inclusive with holiday greetings?

> The oaths made in a typical marriage are impossible

> Life-long good marriages exists

I'm sure you have this reconciled somehow, but it sounds contradictory to me.

Exactly.

> In the USA, all sides can call and rely on their own forensics.

... to the extent their financial resources allow.