Jsbrads

Logically God can be that infinite natural source. Also “infinite natural” may be a contradiction. Also if the universe was created (by a thinking rational God or by the accidental collision of two “things” outside our universe) all of that outer things or being is supernatural.

Perhaps you quoted Jordan perfectly, but missed the point. People have thoughts in their mind that they haven’t perfected. By explaining themselves to others, they improve their understanding of their own thoughts and now can see what those thoughts mean and dismiss or preserve those thoughts. Prior to articulation, thoughts can be amorphous and their interconnectivity can be obstructed.

More abstract, but I regularly find solutions to problems in everyday life. But how do I get to hiring managers?

Mishi, if you have an argument make it.

I’ve graduated a while ago now. Spent very little time working in my chosen field. Spent lots of time scrambling to support myself in all sorts of jobs. Just figured I’d ask if anyone had any ideas I haven’t thought of: I try to network. Online searches which include all of US and international job searches. Tried the professional associations. Tried to get help from professors and classmates.

I read what you wrote.

Family dinner! Totally. I would like everyone to put their phones down for a while too, but I doubt I will be able to accomplish that for more than very short times. Vacation. Eating out. Outings. Child sports, and similar activities. Many traditional celebrations are secular, but I get it. There is an old Jewish tradition mostly unpracticed, that when something good happens to someone, that day every year, they have a Thanksgiving and invite friends over. Get 5-6 people doing this and your years isn’t that empty anymore.

Bushwomen give milk all the time. So instead of filling the tummy and then sleeping it off, the baby sips and keeps a more consistent slow flow. I actually thought that would make more sense for a small baby, but try the Doctor first. Also, pumping... more convenient, but would the baby consume more if the baby nurses? Not sure, but it seems better, not sure how impractical that would be.

To flesh out the case, imagine: The village is on thick rock, high in the Afghan mountains. The digging of the well was an arduous task which one man did alone and the town grew around his plentiful supply of water in a dry land. The man, now 40, dies suddenly leaving a son of 20 who chooses not to share water anymore. It is mid summer and the walk to the nearest water source is arduous and even dangerous with a full canteen, impossible without. If the well seems to have unlimited water fed by and underground spring: Eminent Domain, which is a legal method so long as it is exercised in the most minimal way, should allow the temporary supply of water needed for people to evacuate. If it isn’t a well at all, it is just a large cistern, and the man (40) had paid for it filled and sold water at a dollar a bucket and the son now won’t sell any... If it can be refilled: The townspeople can use Eminent Domain to take what they need to evacuate and pay the water wagon guy to replace the water. If a nuclear holocaust or viral event destroyed every other source of water, they cannot morally take it. You can’t murder one person to save another from death.

Nothing moral in monarchy, because you are property too #slavery As to moral grounds, Bill Whittle said of Arizona land, to whom should we return it? The Sioux conquered the Pueblo, the Pueblo conquered Clover Man, there are no survivors of Clover Man. So should the land prefer the most genocidal conqueror over the least genocidal conqueror?

Most women I meet aren’t interested in guys who don’t have lots of money. A friend who has a fairly well paying professional job, was dumped after engagement when she found out precisely how much he made. I never desired to be rich, but as an engineer, can’t find work and running around doing odd jobs, trying to cover expenses, never taken a penny.

Who told you to give an infant before 1yrs old wheat?! Hopefully your baby won’t suffer any repercussions. Dont give wheat to babies

That’s game theory

Yeah, what you are going to look for in those brain scans is as distant to us as those brain scans. It may be possible to measure cortisol production, and reducing that may be a moral good, I guess.

True utilitarian is about maximizing good for the most people. It is a little like Sam Harris, we can scan all the brains of people in Los Angeles and quantify their happiness points and write laws that maximize total happiness points. It has some flaws, like empathy monsters, people who get tons of happiness points from murdering old people who still have actuarily a year to live and are sufficiently infirm that their whole remaining year of life only attains a minimal number of happiness points. where as I say it is morally good to kill murderers, utilitarianism requires I quantify somehow total happiness points of the kill vs the leave alive. AND it would in theory apply to any murder as well.

It may be social not biological. Yes both men and women treat men differently than women and visa versa.

Just heard of an AI that after given many pictures of dogs and wolves, and then asked to identify if a new sample was a dog or a wolf, it said wolf and this AI was abled to be queried as to why it chose wolf and it replied that it decided the husky was a wolf because there was snow in the background of the picture. Not because of any features on the dog.

Utilitarianism allows you to choose your own goals. It dispenses with universality. “Ends justifying the means” means you can do things you think are evil now if at the end you will get a good result. Lying to Nazi soldiers that you aren’t hiding Jews in your basement.

Utilitarianism argues the ends justify the means (101) so yeah, it works thru time too. Not that expressing in terms of utility specifically was important, merely easily quantifiable and communicable.

Fashus, first I heard of the Jewish Catholic Church. context please, are you currently an antisemite?

Oy! 6x7

Depends on your moral system. utilitarianism would argue you are engaging in a net bad as the person’s future potential is be dissolved for no equal benefit. we can go thru countless other systems, but you know it would be heroic to help another and a wide range of net zero to net really bad in moats systems. note: many today accept if a person is going to die in a day, and the pain can’t be alleviated, an increasing dose of morphine until the body shuts down is moral.

Sieg, one doesn’t mistreat masochists, unless they are very friendly to them. So in a real case, masochists would treat everyone well as they like to be treated, so that people would treat them badly as they like to be treated. i like black licorice for God’s sake. I know that implies I was born under a bad moon while my constellation was in retrograde. But I am still human, and would never eat candy corn. horrible argument

Lorry, your question short, perhaps I “sin” here. Jordan does argue against compelled speech in the law. He also argues for free speech in society as the only chance to avoid violent conflict and positively to help speakers attain truth by exercising their ability to wrestle with those ideas. Two separate ideas I am presuming you conflated.

42