Quieter, less point's of failure, and in many cases taking up less space. I have compressed air for dust. In the consumer sphere and almost any enthusiast sphere, air cooling > > > water cooling
Well homie I appreciate the bullet bite but I don't know how to fix you - you not only feel no need to endorse the ending of genocide - even for the marginalized in societies outside your own, you actively discourage and look down upon interfering with genocide. I don't know if you have the capacity to engage as a member of society, and frankly you may be a danger to it. Maybe you get the boot out of Athens ๐ตโ๐ซ
I believe we seek to arrive at universal morals. When we discuss atrocities, I don't see any reason to frame concerns for the well-being of others as personal preference. Their well-being is outside myself. The concern is for their own sake, not mine. I think you're in contradiction because you are once again saying you don't get to override the moral autonomy of others but simultaneously concede that you oppose atrocities that the moral autonomy of others permit. If I had the option to stop another society (where the majority of that society are in agreement on the action) from engaging in arbitrary genocide of their own citizens, I'd do that. The idea that you would find my action to stop them less permissible than their own tells me you lack conviction for your own values.
Foundationally we already disagree, as I'm a moral objectivist. To assert moral subjectivity is to assert that moral progress does not exist. But with your edit your argument is actually now even worse IMO, because instead of focusing on a moral relativist position you're now basically saying morality=culture/law. i.e., since you have no say in what another society does without disrupting their agreed practice, all their actions are permissible. Bigotry is permissible. Slavery is permissible, hangings are permissible, genocide is permissible, etc, just so long as it simultaneously does not occur within proximity to you and rejects your preference. I think you are tolerant of intolerance.
On the basis of their being conscious feeling thinking emotional beings I assert that there is no moral difference between violating the bodily autonomy of a non-human animal and a human. Given a no alternative hypothetical it's fair to give preference for who to spare, but this is not the same as willful unnecessary violence and killing.
If it's false equivalency, demonstrate why it is permissible to kill non humans but not even permissible to punch humans in the face. What is the morally relevant difference? If you could apply that difference to a human, would you then justify doing to them all the things we do to animals?
Your examples don't have victims, this one does.
The people who want me to stop punching nonconsenting people in the face unprovoked sure are smug about not punching nonconsenting people in the face unprovoked. They should stop telling me what to do. Live and let live. I am very intelligent. An enlightened centrist you might say! โ๏ธ๐ค
Imagine caring at all
Um sweaty dry beans are shelf stable for five years โ๏ธ๐ค
Part of me is okay with this not because I don't want green initiatives, but because it would be wasted on a state that will need a large population exodus. If we are thinking about climate change long term, we should not be encouraging people to be in or stay in Florida. Build the infrastructure elsewhere.
People should respond as if it is fixable, even if it is not. Any mitigation or reduction is positive. If you're gonna go out, go out swinging. Reject the status quo. Expect more from yourself and others.
And also go Vegan ๐ค
Make your dreams come true! There are dozens of us Vegan couples! Dozens! The pool is small but someome tipping their toes in is ready to drag you under and not let go O_O
For the love of God eat fiber and drink water. How hard is this?