it's about that thing actually happening for one person before another person. — Michael

Is that just because we don't know what is happening, or is it because there's nothing happening? A realist would presumably say that something is happening right now in a galaxy far, far way, but if special relativity is true then what's happening right now depends on our individual, relative velocities, such that what's happening right now in a galaxy far, far way in your reference frame isn't what's happening right now in a galaxy far, far away in my reference frame. — Michael

Are you suggesting that none of the early city states like Jericho and Uruk, or joined city states such as the Sumerians or the Greeks, ever employed capitalism? Buy cheap and sell dear was employed even under early barter systems. It was always about control and manipulation of supply and demand. — universeness

Exactly. Humans can work the through issues. Gender is complex and if someone needs to be male or female on non-binary where the fuck is the problem? People think it's against god or against nature. They think it's a war on truth. I heard all the same shit about homosexuality back a few decades back and even now in some communities. — Tom Storm

Not this one, no. OTOH, somehow all the people looking for how people are unique neglect to mention the unique human ability to fuck in numerous, varied and spectacular ways. — Vera Mont

In my view, morality doesn't involve groups. It involves interactions between moral agents (individuals), which could perhaps even include interactions with oneself.

Personifying groups as though they think and act like individuals is virtually always an inaccurate representation of reality and tends to lead to all sorts of peculiar conclusions.

Secondly, I believe it is possible that the moral thing to do (or not do) can be contrary to the individual's (or for simplicity's sake, the group's) self-interest. That is self-sacrifice. — Tzeentch

You're suggesting an alignment by the rich north to impose economic sanctions on China and Russia in the hopes of altering their behavior and bringing them in compliance with Western economic policy. Seems like a hostile approach that might result in worse immediate outcomes than the long range consequences of global warming.

Looking at this the other way, would the US alter its policies based upon Chinese tariffs, or would it double down on the idea of achieving economic independence? I tend to think the latter, which just means that I don't think we can expect to force our opposition to our way of thinking by withholding some of the things they want. — Hanover

This accepts my premise, which is that we're on an inevitable collision course. If that is the case, maybe focus all our attention right now on finding methods to adapt and allowing climate change to continue occurring at its current pace.

For example, if the water is spilling over the dam, we could throw bags on there to give us ten years (instead of five) to figure out how to protect the village below before the dam fully collapses or we could just start figuring out how to protect the village right now in anticipation of the dam fully collapsing in five years. That is, do I want 10 years of expensive, futile labor or 5 years of status quo, followed by the same outcome that I more quickly prepared for.

We could argue over which idea is best, but they are both reasonable alternatives. — Hanover

That's just unfortunately not the case. It's why there is war all over the world. I'd like to think we could sit down with Russia, China, North Korea and whoever else and work through all this. If we could do that, then we'd resolve issues far more pressing than climate change as well. — Hanover

The equal protection clause, or at the least the general principle underlying it, does give certain power to the tu quoque argument. The requirement is that you treat similarly situated people similarly, and it would be problematic to basic notions of fairness if it could be shown that a Democratic leaning DOJ was prosecuting only Republicans but allowing Democrats to do as they wish for similar conduct. One's political affiliation shouldn't dictate how they're treated. — Hanover

That is, I'll concede man-made climate change, but still contend maintaining the status quo is the best solution and dealing with the climate change as it comes is the best course. — Hanover

Incels subscribe to a transnational ideology characterised by white male supremacy, oppression of women and the glorification and encouragement of male violence. Seeing themselves as perpetual victims oppressed by a “feminist gynocracy”, they believe that sex is their inherent birthright as men, and that rape and murder are appropriate punishments for a society they perceive as withholding sex from them. — the Guardian

Yet not more than 18 months ago, US talking heads would regularly refer to sanctions as "the nuclear option" ... anyone calling them that now? — boethius

because emotionalism modifies science. — Varnaj42

Is there no way we can cut CO2 emissions quickly? Sure there is: We can all adopt a lifestyle based on 1890s technology — BC

I suppose if your only unit of analysis is household net worth, this above is true. But that seems more like a problem in picking your unit of analysis than a real reduction. This was always the problem I had with neo-Marxist analysis: "everything comes down to social class, I can prove it by giving an analysis where everything in analyzed only in terms of class," or the newly popular version of doing the same thing with race; it's just a complex form of petitio principii. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Despite the ability of current AI to output respectable writing exhibiting almost human like creativity in literary forms. — invicta

I agree that is broadly, what is required but Tristan and Asa seem to be suggesting, that such precaution, is just not happening and with all due respect to Benkei, et al, some folks have already given up the fight! — universeness