nednobbins

It happens regularly.

I'd also add that I find everyday stories from real people to be vastly more engaging that the completely unbelievable stories I see on TV.

I’m not arguing that Russia is trustworthy. I’m saying that nuclear retaliation is a standard policy for any nuclear power.

We’d be relying on an other Stanislav Petrov to save us. I don’t like those odds.

Do you consider yourself these people's friend?
If you're completely disinterested in their milestones, that sounds more like an acquaintance.

But to your question, yes. I actually care about these things for acquaintances and random people too. There are limits to how much I care but it's not zero.

That's a brilliant plan. Nuclear armed countries generally have a policy of "live and let live" once they get nuked so that should work out great.

I get the feeling of discomfort but it's basically the same feeling we get when someone breaks a pencil

There is no evidence that a mosquito is capable of feeling the kind of despair or horror that a human would feel in a similar situation. It's unlikely that mosquitos can form emotions at all.

At the same time, a huge portion of human-animal interactions involve the human controlling the animal in ways that they animal can't even comprehend. A dog has no idea you're doing operant conditioning to change their behavior. Pigs have no idea they're being fed just so they and their children can be eaten.

The only way to avoid this kind of thing is to turn off your big human brain and go back to ape tier. We might need to go farther down the tier list than that though https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gombe_Chimpanzee_War

I just read that list. As near as I can tell they put a lot of words in that don't actually promise anything helpful. Maybe I'm wrong.

Let's make it as easy as possible to show this plan in a good light. Instead of finding one bad bullet point in that list and tearing it up, let's see if we can find one good one.

Out of that entire list, which bullet point do you think has the best chance to actually "counter Islamophobia and Anti-Arab Hate?"

edit: grammar

I'm also offended by Israeli war crimes but I don't think that's an accurate assessment.

As far as I can tell, the Israeli military is very good at violence. They're extremely well equipped, they have superb training, and their military personnel tend to be dedicated to their cause.

The main problem isn't their ability to kill and destroy, it's their indiscriminate use of that ability.

It's a valid question and I'm sure the Harris campaign has spent considerable resources trying to get a good estimate of that number.

It's pretty insane that the Democratic party officials have to say, "We'd love to stop funding a genocide but our members won't vote for us if we do that."

There's quite a lot of disagreements between historians on why there's an electoral college https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/k5hv2m/what_was_the_founders_purpose_in_creating_the/

We have a lot of laws that protect people from government. The complement to such a policy is that we reduce the amount of protection government has from people.

If you assume that your government is bad or that it will inevitably become bad then this is a great policy to reduce bad government. The flip side is that if we expect government to protect us from individual bad citizens who have gained a lot of power it's harder.

edit: grammar

That seems unlikely, since the constitution doesn't really include safeguards against someone like Trump.

The founding fathers were afraid of a King (at least some of them were). They put all kinds of limits on the power of the executive but they assumed people would follow those rules. They never really considered the possibility of a private citizens gaining so much power that they can ignore government.

The glaring difference between the two is our level of active involvement.

Solidarity is one thing. Actually doing something about Sudan would require some sort of deliberate intervention.

In the case of Gaza we could likely make a huge difference if we just stopped arming the aggressors.

We don't send arms to Sudan. We don't send arms to Putin. We don't send arms to the Sri Lankan military. We don't send arms to Boko Haram. We don't send arms to Myanmar.

Charity is about who benefits, not about who decides how to provide that benefit.

The idea of choosing a charity based on the donor's will of how it will get spent describes almost all types of charity. If someone donates to any charity at all, they have made a choice on how to allocate their resources and they just take it on faith that that's the people who need it the most.

Furthermore, any given dollar of his can only be spent once. The money he spent on himself enriches himself. It's a considerable amount of money but it's a tiny fraction of the money he controls. Any dollar he gives away can't be spent to enrich himself.

Finally, Buffet has donated over $57 billion. How is he supposed to distribute that? Fly a plane around the country and dump cash out the window? Send a huge check to the IRS? Give it all to your favorite charity? The obvious answer is that he sets up an organization that will analyze existing charities for need and effectiveness and then distributes his assets accordingly.