christoffer's recent activity
-
Comment on 'Climate Despair' Is Making People Give Up on Life in ~enviro
-
Comment on What is your personal preference and why: vim or emacs? in ~comp
christoffer LinkI use emacs + vim(evil). I used vim for almost 10 years inside a terminal emulator (usually tmux). Then I read about org-mode for the hundredth time, decided to give it a try, and found it so...I use emacs + vim(evil).
I used vim for almost 10 years inside a terminal emulator (usually tmux). Then I read about org-mode for the hundredth time, decided to give it a try, and found it so powerful that I thought there must be something amazing in a platform that allows someone to build something like that. So naturally, I started using learning lisp and using vim inside emacs (evil), and have been much happier ever since.
Emacs the environment (not the text editor) is the most amazing creative place inside a computer I have ever experienced. Paired with evil, you got a winner, in my experience!
-
Comment on What creative projects are you working on? (May 2019 edition) in ~creative
christoffer Link ParentGo for it! rust is a great language, my preferred one for low level stuff. Engine in rust, scripting and other high level stuff in lua, or even better, a lisp, would be an awesome project to work...Go for it! rust is a great language, my preferred one for low level stuff. Engine in rust, scripting and other high level stuff in lua, or even better, a lisp, would be an awesome project to work on, I bet!
-
Comment on What creative projects are you working on? (May 2019 edition) in ~creative
christoffer Link ParentThank you for your reply!Thank you for your reply!
-
Comment on What creative projects are you working on? (May 2019 edition) in ~creative
christoffer Link ParentThat's a great looking game, I just checked your trailer too, it looks awesome! What are you using for creating the game? I'm thinking programming language, toolkits and so on.That's a great looking game, I just checked your trailer too, it looks awesome! What are you using for creating the game? I'm thinking programming language, toolkits and so on.
-
Comment on Which subscriptions do you consider to be worth their cost? in ~talk
christoffer Link ParentVery interesting, thank you.Very interesting, thank you.
-
Comment on Which subscriptions do you consider to be worth their cost? in ~talk
christoffer Link ParentI’m just asking because I don’t know... Why do you think Google is not mining your data as a GSuite paying customer?I’m just asking because I don’t know...
Why do you think Google is not mining your data as a GSuite paying customer?
-
Comment on My country decided that animal sacrifice in the name of religion is constitutional in ~talk
christoffer Link ParentYou got it right. There is a difference, just like there to me is a difference between you and my kids, and objectively there is a difference between a retarded person and a highly capable one....So your response is very interesting because I'm used to people that I've had this discussion with in the past arguing that the life of an animal is as equally valuable as the life of a person. And you (like me) seem to believe that it's not quite so black and white, that there is in fact some difference in the value of the life of a person vs an animal, indeed that a human life is MORE valuable than an animal's life. Let me know if I didn't get that right.
You got it right.
There is a difference, just like there to me is a difference between you and my kids, and objectively there is a difference between a retarded person and a highly capable one.
Is it necessary to test products on animals to make sure the products won't harm a human? Some could argue it's not necessary but then we might point to the possible undetected side effects that harm humans as being the reason why we need to do that testing. So let's say that in general, we recognize that there is some need to test products on animals. But what products? Is testing dandruff shampoo worth caging a monkey for it's entire life as a test subject? What about a rat? What about makeup? That's commonly tested on animals and it's hard to argue that's a necessity (insert sexist joke here).
Good points.
Something you should know is that the conclusion you reach is not at all obvious and the Trolley problem has been argued about by philosophers and others for a long, long time. What if the single person is your mother? Does that change your answer about killing them instead of the 100 humans? Your sister? Your aunt? Your third-cousin? Do you see how all of this gets very slippery very quickly?
I'm aware, and they are right, subjectively, there is a lot of factors to consider. However the trolley problem is not necessary to solve to say that unnecessarily inflicting suffering on other beings, human or not, is not okay, so I'm okay with that The lowest denominator - both in this, and in your point from the paragraph before this one - is that unnecessarily inflicting suffering on other beings should not be considered okay. Lets get the world onboard with that, and then we can argue about what is and what is not necessary afterwards :)
Another bothersome turn of phrase! How do we define suffering and one's capacity for it? I believe many fish (correct me if I'm wrong) lack pain receptors so can they not suffer? How many fish do we throw on dry land to equal the suffering of a cow brought to slaughter? How many chickens in too-tight-of-quarters equals the suffering on a man in prison?
Again, let us focus on the lowest denominator first. Then we can tackle all the granularities afterwards.
You've presented to very large caveats to the "we should not kill animals" position:
Unless it's necessary
Unless it prevents greater suffering in othersGiven that we both agree that a human's life is more valuable than an animals (which I think is a common sentiment) I think we can both recognize that there is a WHOLE lot that can fit under those two points and that is reflected in how society treats animals in the here-and-now. People's opinions of what is necessary and what constitutes suffering simply differ and it's by working on a common understanding of those two points that we can have the most effect on how animals are treated in our society.
Given that we both agree that a human's life is more valuable than an animals
No, I don't blankly agree with that. I think some human animals are worth less than some non-human animals. Brain dead people for example. Or one person vs 2 billion cows. To take an extreme example, I don't personally believe that the holocaust of (~5 million) humans is a bigger calamity than the "holocaust" that is right now ongoing towards many billions of sentient animals per year, at least not if we talk about amount of suffering. There is nothing to suggest that the "few" jews (in comparison) has suffered more than the extreme number of animals that have been mistreated in industrial animal farming over the last century. Pigs are considered mentally capable to the extend of a young child. And many billions of pigs as well as other sentient animals, are being mistreated in highly similar, and worse, situations every year compared to what the jews in the holocaust were.
Now, just to make it clear, I think both things are disasters, and I don't think we have to compare the two. Both things are calamities. But if we were to measure the two objectively by the amount of suffering, I think it's pretty clear which of the two is worse.
However, I just think we should not be harming other beings except if it's necessary, necessary meaning except if it's detrimental to me objectively (not subjectively) thriving.
-
Comment on My country decided that animal sacrifice in the name of religion is constitutional in ~talk
christoffer Link ParentGood point.Good point.
-
Comment on My country decided that animal sacrifice in the name of religion is constitutional in ~talk
christoffer Link ParentIn those cases in can be argued that it's necessary. Or at least were once upon a time. As the years go by, robots will be better. Still, if it's necessary, it's okay. If it isn't, it shouldn't be...Thinking more broadly, what about animal testing? What about bomb-sniffing dogs? The proverbial canary in the coal mine?
In those cases in can be argued that it's necessary. Or at least were once upon a time. As the years go by, robots will be better. Still, if it's necessary, it's okay. If it isn't, it shouldn't be considered okay.
An animal and a human are on separate tracks. The train won't stop. You are responsible or switching the tracks. Do you switch it so the animal is killed or the human? If you responded "I'd kill the human" then I think we're not going to ever see eachother's view points and we might both make better use of our time. If you responded "I'd kill the animal" then we recognize that we're placing more value on the life of the human than the animal. And why shouldn't we? The human may cure cancer or make some other contribution that helps the whole, while it's highly unlikely that a single animal will do the same. Given that there is some difference in value between the life of the human vs the life of the animal, is it so wrong to treat them differently?
Again, in this case, it can be considered necessary. If it were two groups of humans, one with 100 people and one with two, it would be clear that you would have to sacrifice the one group with the less capability of suffering. If it's a person and an animal, the case is the same.
-
Comment on My country decided that animal sacrifice in the name of religion is constitutional in ~talk
christoffer Link ParentI see your point ... however the topic isn't about whether it's lawful or not. Those are facts that OP is aware of. It's about if it should be or not, hence why I still believe @TheJorro's...I see your point
it's only natural to discuss the legal aspects of killing animals.
... however the topic isn't about whether it's lawful or not. Those are facts that OP is aware of. It's about if it should be or not, hence why I still believe @TheJorro's comments are unwarranted and missing the mark.
-
Comment on My country decided that animal sacrifice in the name of religion is constitutional in ~talk
christoffer Link ParentIt's not asking about whether it's lawful or not, it's specifically not asking that. The point of the topic is whether it's morally sound.It's not asking about whether it's lawful or not, it's specifically not asking that. The point of the topic is whether it's morally sound.
-
Comment on My country decided that animal sacrifice in the name of religion is constitutional in ~talk
christoffer Link ParentDeath doesn't always equate to suffering in the physical sense. However in an objective sense, by killing someone, you are taking their possibility of experiencing future joys and so on, which is...Death doesn't always equate to suffering in the physical sense. However in an objective sense, by killing someone, you are taking their possibility of experiencing future joys and so on, which is a kind of suffering. However not something they will feel since they are dead. But you are still taking something away from them in any case.
Anyways, the point is necessary or not.
For a wolf, it's necessary to hunt and kill. For humans getting their food from a supermarket, it isn't to get the necessary nutrients to be healthy. Sometimes however it's necessary to kill another human. For example in self defence, in which case it's morally okay and it's also lawful. But when it's not necessary, it's not morally right, or lawful, to kill another human. And my point is that when it's not necessary to kill a non-human animal, it shouldn't be considered morally right nor should it be lawful. We extend that respect to other humans, whether they extend it back at us or not (babies don't, mentally handicapped people in some cases don't, evil people don't, and so on), why not to non-humans who only kill to survive? And who not to non-humans who doesn't even kill except by accident, like a cow?
-
Comment on My country decided that animal sacrifice in the name of religion is constitutional in ~talk
christoffer Link ParentYes, so it's not about if it's lawful or not, it's about right or wrong, as I said.Yes, so it's not about if it's lawful or not, it's about right or wrong, as I said.
-
Comment on My country decided that animal sacrifice in the name of religion is constitutional in ~talk
christoffer Link ParentYes, but it's not about whether or not it's lawful (that's a matter of fact, not an opinion), it's about whether it should be lawful or not.Yes, but it's not about whether or not it's lawful (that's a matter of fact, not an opinion), it's about whether it should be lawful or not.
-
Comment on My country decided that animal sacrifice in the name of religion is constitutional in ~talk
christoffer Link ParentI don’t understand why you are talking about laws. This post is specifically about right or wrong, not what is lawful and unlawful.I don’t understand why you are talking about laws. This post is specifically about right or wrong, not what is lawful and unlawful.
-
Comment on My country decided that animal sacrifice in the name of religion is constitutional in ~talk
christoffer Link ParentThere is a difference just like there is a difference among individuals. Humans are different to one another - some a babies, some are young, some are old, some are clever, some are stupid, some...There is a difference just like there is a difference among individuals. Humans are different to one another - some a babies, some are young, some are old, some are clever, some are stupid, some can’t feel any pain, some can’t feel anything at all, nor have a brain that is capable of anything more than a dog, and some are capable of a whole lot.
Just like there is a difference among people, there are differences among species. As far as we know, humans are the most developed animals. But only as far as we know, and only now. Could easily be different in the future.
None of this makes for good excuses for why we are allowed to force other living, feeling, sentient beings to serve under our will when it’s not necessary. We understand that we don’t want to suffer, so we shouldn’t make other beings suffer either if we can help it. Or at least not do so while asking others to respect our well-being. Not when it’s not necessary.
-
Comment on My country decided that animal sacrifice in the name of religion is constitutional in ~talk
christoffer (edited )LinkMy opinion is that of course it’s wrong if it’s not necessary which it isn’t. But I also don’t consume, or use in any other way (directly at least), any animals products since they are not...My opinion is that of course it’s wrong if it’s not necessary which it isn’t.
But I also don’t consume, or use in any other way (directly at least), any animals products since they are not necessary for me, so my view on the matter is most likely a bit different than most peoples.
-
Comment on Does Tildes have RSS feeds? in ~tildes
christoffer Link ParentThanks, I'll add some of them to my reader and see how it fares!Thanks, I'll add some of them to my reader and see how it fares!
-
Comment on Does Tildes have RSS feeds? in ~tildes
christoffer Link ParentThanks! But yeah, the duplicates is really a no go. Wonder why it happens.Thanks! But yeah, the duplicates is really a no go. Wonder why it happens.
That's where we disagree. We are not God, modern robber barrons and charlatans are. We have given the power over us to the people that are the least suited for the job. People that care only about themself instead of putting everyone else in-front of them, as a good leader does. And I'm not talking about the US only. I'm not american. It's like this practically everywhere. The ones wielding power are the least suited to do so, if we take the perspective of the good of all, and it will continue to be so as long as we celebrate personal gain above everything else.
Humanity is not doomed, but we certainly are.