Same deal with fishing

“Yes, over”

The thing about being straight is that it’s really easy to get bent out of shape apparently.

If this is a gift for someone you may be purchasing your future murder weapon.

Just say Denuvno

More nuclear warheads as well. Not saying that’s a good thing, but it seems to be the only real deterrent.

Threatening to use the armed forces against your political opponents is generally considered not a great sign for a democracy as well.

Oh no

I’m not American so not sure exactly who my camp is or what I was supposed to do. Enjoy your measles and smallpox, hope it was a good trade in exchange for making zero difference to Palestinians in the best case.

Haha, yeah that’ll show em!

Now instead of having a president that supports the genocide of Palestinians you’ll have… checks notes … a president that supports the genocide of Palestinians. Wait there’s more here… doesn’t believe in climate change, a guy who actively wants to prove that vaccines don’t work actually in charge of health related shit, enabling the genocide of Ukraine (hey a whole new genocide!), pulling out of alliances and what’s this last fun one, threatening the already flawed foundations of US democracy by, among other things, threatening to deploy the military against political opponents.

Is that what winning and being morally superior looks like? Because it looks pretty awful from here.

Maybe half of it is the Korean translation?

In the grim darkness of the far future there is only the campaign trail

I think we can still do that without having to buy into the idea of a divine and immutable source of morals or tying our moral thinking to a specific textual work or collection of works. I’d argue we can do it even better without those things because whilst they did have a place in our history and were probably helpful at one time they have ended up holding us back particularly in recent times.

I agree with you on this one for sure. That’s one of the reasons I think that a text is not a particularly good foundation for an absolute system of morals. I don’t know why we need to mess around with interpretations in that case.

Interpretation can be possible, but often the driver doesn’t seem to be a genuine seeking of a moral truth but working backwards to avoid morally unpalatable conclusions or outright cherry picking and ignoring certain parts of a text. I see that as a tacit admission that morals don’t actually come from the text itself but maybe there’s something I’m missing as I’m far from an expert.

We can have a discussion about the moral frameworks where that would be wrong but an absolute moral giver allows for no such discussion.

Or people commit genocide because of a command from an entity we just assume is the source of all morality and therefore their actions and commands cannot be immoral by definition.

It was super fun to be gaslit by people while I was actually living in Taiwan but yeah, gets old after a while.

Why would you assume there’s a buyer? Maybe these people just really really like cheese

But how am I supposed to know what my knee jerk reaction to this article should be before reading it?