Generating images of him with MLK is just so wild. Not sure if this is the product of completely delusional minds or hostile foreign actors.

There is an interesting precursor from the election that made Lincoln president. There were groups of young people forming “Wide-Awake” clubs and demonstrating.

Source

History tells us that unfortunately fascists are REALLY good at causing collateral damage on the road to self-destruction.

The situation echoes the 2018-2020 trade war, during which U.S. agriculture lost $26 billion, with nearly $20 billion in soybean losses alone.

Weird, we tried this a few years back it seems with terrible consequences. Why are we doing this again? Seriously who is starting all of these trade wars?

Oh.

Oh I see.

Here is the letter allegedly from Trump to Epstein on his birthday.

The article doesn’t have a picture of the mural (but has 3 photos of police guarding a barrier erected to block visibility). I found this article that appears to have an image of the artwork.

I think one problem with this is that there is only so much land/sea on earth. Once all available land is forested you have completely maxed out this option. Then when a tree dies and falls over most of its carbon begins to be released back into the atmosphere by decomposing organisms so you are reliant on another tree taking its place to maintain status quo. Same for any biological solution (algae dies/eaten -> carbon released).

Many people are saying there is something wrong with his mitochondria.

Here is a news article with photos and describing the White House saying the bruises were from handshakes and aspirin use.

I don’t think it’s that “three fifths” is the only bad part per se, it just gets referenced a lot because it is a really indefensible example of how enslaved people were considered less than a person. So much so that here it is codified as a fraction of a person. Very in your face sort of language.

I completely agree it is problematic if not impossible if your goal is to use some sort of universal logic to persuade others that you are right and they are wrong. I don’t have a solution for that and as far as I can tell only religions claim to have an answer which is basically “our god is right and says X is right and Y is wrong.”

I’m not sure I would go so far as to say that means you are not “legitimate” for opposing harm to others. The question that springs to mind is, who gets to decide what is objectively legitimate? The question sort of presupposes there is some higher authority which can be appealed to (a god, etc). If you aren’t basing your reasoning in religion/gods then I don’t see how you can logically derive morality without relying on your personal beliefs. I’d love to see someone show me how they think morality can be objective without a religious premise.

This is longer than I intended, sorry.

Tl;dr: Morality is a relative thing and cannot be externally deduced from pure logic. Your personal values will necessarily inform your moral beliefs.

Others have addressed that there are very real social/self-preservation reasons to not harm others but I will address the morality side which is what I think you were asking about.

I’ve heard this sort of question framed more generally as part of the “is/ought” logical dilemma. Morality can sort of be summarized as “ought” statements regarding our behavior. For example: We should (ought to) protect children from harm. That’s a moral statement but where is the justification for it?

The basic idea of the is/ought dilemma is that you cannot logically derive “ought” statements from “is” statements. Said differently: you cannot derive a moral statement of “one ought to do X” from premises that simply define “this thing is A.”

• So I can say that children are wonderful, creative, and beautiful (This is an “is” statement which you might agree with).
• Children are innocent (“is”).
• Neither of these statements then logically implies that we should never do harm to children (An “ought” statement). I would need to add another premise “We ought to protect the innocent” for it to be a logical conclusion.

But then where did “We ought to protect the innocent” come from? If you try to justify it you will find that you will have to predicate it on another “we ought” sort of statement, you never get back to just stating something “is” as the sole basis of the moral conclusion.

That’s a bit long winded but the general idea is that the basis of morality is not something I think you can logically deduce from statements of fact. Religions often try to bypass this by saying “well god is the source of morality so if he says something is wrong that makes it objectively wrong.” This is a gigantic stipulation to agree to however and without it, I don’t think logic alone can be used to derive morality.

For example I believe that life evolved over millions of years and is incredibly fragile (is statement). I also think that life is special and beautiful. Someone once said: “We are star stuff. We are the universe made manifest, trying to figure itself out.” That statement resonates with my world view. Because I personally value life and think it is special, it makes sense to me that we ought to do things to protect life - don’t harm others, try to assist those in need, etc. But even that is more of a guiding priciniple and not a moral absolute. If someone was committing violence against my child I would would harm them if necessary to stop them.

Furthermore, I recognize that not everyone even accepts my “is” statements about life being special and beautiful, and even that statement is insufficient to come up with an absolute moral position, as I just gave an example of. That’s part of the reason societies will make laws to enforce punishment for behavior that harms others - not everyone agrees on morality or its basis.

So why shouldn’t we hurt others? Look closely at your core beliefs and you’ll find the answer (or maybe you won’t).

I first noticed this a few years back when I started to see “The Empire Did Nothing Wrong” on bumper stickers. Sure it seemed like a joke at the time but I was confused that so many people thought this was a statement worth putting on their vehicle. I mean, pretty early on in the OT, Darth Vader uses the Death Star to murder an entire planet so surely no one was serious, right?

Whoooo boy have I learned a lot about my neighbors’ values since then.

And the post implies that most men do.”

I don’t agree this is the implication. The comic is juxtaposing how men might see a bunch of single women as an opportunity whereas women might see a bunch of single men as a threat. It doesn’t have to be all or even most men in that group for the threat to be real.

Also how is the data not relevant? The data is literally quantifying the problem this comic is addressing: this is a problem that disproportionately victimizes women and the perpetrators are often men, by a large margin. That is literally the basis for why the woman is unsettled whereas the man is relatively carefree.

With a lot of parasites, when they die the tissue around them calcifies (just your body’s response). That’s what we are seeing on the radiograph.

It’s kind of good to hear this. I LOVED Twilight Princess but missed out on Skyward Sword because life got really hectic. Glad I didn’t really miss out from what it sounds like.

In general this was my experience as well. There is one important exception for me which was Google Earth. Being able to sit in a chair and drag a huge model of the earth beneath me and view distant places like I was a bird is just magnificent. Doesn’t make me motion sickness the way most games do.

This is the one I came here for. Really don’t care for him. Only exception I make is Edge of Tomorrow which is great. Maybe because his character starts as an entitled ass which feels natural.

The AirTag chirp is not that loud. Yes if you held it right to your ear canal it might be uncomfortable but the distance from neck collar to ear I wouldn’t worry about.