In what context is there a difference? “Orbit” and “revolve around” are synonyms.

You clearly don’t know biology do you

Says the person claiming a fetus is a fully developed human.

are you capable of sustaining yourself I you were left in a jungle ?

Millions of people live in the jungles of the world. How many fetuses live outside wombs? Oh right, none. Because there’s a difference between having the skills to survive in the jungle, and being a fully developed human capable of independent biological survival.

Have you ensured that every single one of your gametes resulted in a child? Then you’re a genocidal hypocrite.

Then how come they can’t survive without leeching off a host? 80% of pregnancies spontaneously end in miscarriage. That doesn’t sound viable or fully developed to me. If it could survive outside the womb, you’d have a point. But it can’t, so you don’t.

You know who was actually fully-developed? All the women who have died due to pregnancy complications thanks to draconic laws that take away their rights over their own bodies. I’ll hold you responsible for murdering them.

Did I protest?

I know, I was doubling down to reinforce the veracity of the judgement against me, to contextualize my dissent

I do not run a Lemmy instance.

Lemmy isn’t such a limited resource. Taking up space isn’t that big a deal.

… so you’re saying it is what happened?

I used to do an all nighter at least once a month in my 20s with no ill effects unless I tried to do more than one a week. Tried it in my 30s, the recovery was rough.

The free market is excellent at producing, at a reasonable cost, myriad voluntary luxuries like large televisions and speedy cars. These prices are naturally constrained by the consumers’ willingness to do-without. When the consumer cannot rationally choose to do-without, the elegant self-regulation intrinsic to the free market evaporates.

On the plus side, maybe this will actually result in some kind of reasonable gun legislation that will trickle down to a reduction of general gun violence. Maybe. Hopefully. Sometimes all it takes is showing the leopard party that their faces are also in danger.

Ben Franklin could almost be considered something like a shadow leader, with very little direct power but a significant amount of political influence. I haven’t played newer Civ, if a Ben Franklin play purely buffs soft power, trade/research agreements, etc, I could see this working. He was still an actual statesman though, so even still he’s on paper a better choice. But he’s not a great choice if the build isn’t based on soft political influence. But Tubman just wasn’t that kind of leader, what she did was amazing, but it wasn’t really leadership of a civilization.

So? Just because someone chooses not to follow the reason, that doesn’t make the reason invalid. If anything you’re only proving the failures of a passion-driven ethical model, if the psychopath’s passion is inflicting pain there’s nothing to keep them from behaving unethically.

It is the logical extension of noticing the similarities between yourself and others, and noticing that you do not enjoy pain. It’s certainly not mathematically rigorous, but it follows from simple reasoning nonetheless. If you wanted to be rigorous, you can’t even claim that you don’t like pain, only that you haven’t liked specific instances of pain in the past. Some estimations are necessary for a functioning framework of any kind, including ethics.

That probably has a lot to do with it. Doubling the workforce let’s employers be way pickier.

1. I am a sentient creature that feels pain and pleasure

2. Others appear to be sentient creatures that feel pain and pleasure

3. Pain is bad, so I should avoid inflicting it

You don’t need empathy as an axiom to derive it rationally

I disagree. Reason can take you there by virtue of justice or equality.

No? Once reason restricts passion, the hierarchy collapses. An action that causes yourself mild pain, but pleasure of greater extent to others, is preferable to an action that causes many others pain even if it gives you pleasure personally. Reason demands you restrain yourself from the passions that would harm others. That’s not unilateral fealty. Axioms must be assumed, but the most powerful systems assume as few as possible, and leave most of the legwork to reason.

Bentham developed hedonistic calculus. The foundation is a multivariate ethical vector space. He rationalized hedonism to the extreme. The passions are explicitly tempered for a calculated greater good.

What I read is his friends identified him as economically leftist, but took issue with identity politics