sfj

> Some have, um, less formal delivery options, and I fall back to just walking over.

He only walks to some, not all. And I don't live in the US, so if it's incredibly US biased, I just got lucky, I guess.

You're wasting gas, though, and hurting the environment.

I don't know, (and the whole reason I'm in this conversation was because I thought it was such an amusing concept I couldn't resist...)

Do you have a way to measure consciousness? Would you object to killing a process with a sighup, that outputted “Ouch“ to the terminal?

The metaphysical blabbery is the justification for this idea to judge raising animals for slaughter as cruel. It's not blabbery to question it.

> "a full, relatively pain free life" is not at all an accurate description of anything related to factory farming.

You understand that I'm not saying relative to your life, right, but to some other life in some other universe?

> Also, karma is not about judgment. It's about each individual's own state of consciousness.

It seems to be about your individual biases and judgement, actually.

> so by extension everything is just great, right?

I never said this.

> let's all eat each other while we ponder these great questions.

Let's make sure no being is ever born again who might suffer. Seems totally good and just, therefore it must be true, right?

What arrogance...

I find the assumptions embedded in this argument very strange. It brings up a huge number of questions.

Only a conscious being would feel pain, so what is consciousness? Does it come down and embed itself into creatures that are born? If so, if they weren't born, would that be necessarily better? What if consciousness, if it didn't have a body to enter into, appeared in a different universe from ours with its own, possibly worse, sufferings? Wouldn't it be better to give the animal a full, relatively pain free life than the possibility that it would suffer greater in some other universe in some other dimension?

Or does consciousness originate on the spot, somehow born along with the creature? In that case it would be better to not be born at all? Or would it be better to have more consciousness in the universe, despite the suffering an individual might experience, rather than otherwise? Is consciousness a good in itself? Would a universe devoid of all conscious beings be the perfect good, lonely, desolate, without meaning. Or one full of them, with shared misery to go around?

All in all, it's seems quite a murky topic to be throwing around judgement on people about.

But what if the plants we like to eat are more conscious than the plants that animals like to eat? Or even more conscious than the animals themselves? How do we really know? What if there is a God in every peanut?

> raised and massacred living beings

Plants are also living beings...

But how do you win? With players from other teams on the map, there is no way you can achieve the stated win condition:

> The goal is to paint the whole map with your team's color by moving.

You still don't get it, I'm not talking about myself, just how the public reacts. I don't think preferential treatment based on skin color is ever a good idea.

> Asian discrimination in the US includes the Chinese Exclusion Act, the 1917 Immigration Act, bans on the ownership of property (leading to the development of Chinatown ghettos), and internment camps.

> Furthermore, many Asian immigrant groups came to the US quite poor, such as early Chinese, and in more modern times, Vietnamese.

Compared to slavery, the holocaust, having your land stolen away from you, and a fleeing refuge from war and poverty, these are small potatoes.

> I think this comment speaks more to personal ignorance than the actual truth of the matter.

I never said that Asians didn't have their own hardships, and in general, I don't think it's fair to lump people in categories such as race or sex and say your group of people suffered in such a way, therefore you personally are more deserving than others. What I'm saying is there lacks a simple visual story for Asians of suffering and this has a societal psychological effect on how they are being treated.

Don't confuse what I'm saying as what should be vs what is. I don't pay much attention to what should be, because as an individual I can have little effect. I do like to understand what is and why it is (and like to comment about my theories about it)

The problem is that Asians don't have a story of discrimination. Blacks have slavery, Jews have the holocaust, Native Americans have their land being taken from them, and Latinos have being raised in a third world country and fled to America on foot. These are simple, visual stories as to why they were all discriminated against.

But Asians, along with Indians are mostly relatively wealthy immigrants that came here legally. There is no story of their collective hardships, so no heart strings are pulled, so no one cares.

If there was a movie about discrimination and hardship, the Asians would be cut out of it, being their story was too boring and not dramatic enough. That is the real reason.

> Thus emphasizing the importance of controlled trials and regulatory bodies.

Funny, you give the results study that did not used controlled trials to justify emphasizing the importance of controlled trials. Even further, this study was not non-peer reviewed, or published (see https://edition.cnn.com/2020/04/21/health/hydroxychloroquine...)

All they did here was to review charts of people already treated and try to base their conclusions on only that. Even the study itself admits (https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.16.20065920v...):

However, hydroxychloroquine, with or without azithromycin, was more likely to be prescribed to patients with more severe disease, as assessed by baseline ventilatory status and metabolic and hematologic parameters. Thus, as expected, increased mortality was observed in patients treated with hydroxychloroquine, both with and without azithromycin.

There are a lot of people right now, including the MSM, dismissing of HCQ. I don't think that is warranted at this point. And I hate to see the media, who is heavily influenced by the pharmaceutical industry, who has a interest in preventing a cheap treatment from being widely used, downplaying HCQ and the public going along with it.

Or Uninteruptable Power Supply. When I got my first job, I always wondered why our company designated the UPS with their own room on the floor map...

The closest thing I have seen to this is motocoin, where the proof of work is represented by a procedurally generated game the user must win to mine the coin: https://motocoin-dev.github.io/motocoin-site/Motocoin.pdf

Long dead now, though.

How would you turn that into a proof of work system, if the answer is already known beforehand?

What “study”? Are we not talking about what the parent poster wrote anymore?

And to answer your question, you see, there are these people called reporters, and they get a lot of information from very different sources. They filter out what is interesting and broadcast it to their audience. Perhaps you've heard of them.

> Why would it be spread in certain areas and not others?

I would guess because of different social distancing practices.

> Why would knowing who has antibodies hurt the economy when everyone is already secluded?

Knowing who has antibodies is going to be conflated with who has covid-19, because the general public is not going to get the nuance. And everyone is secluded right now but that will change.

However, I don't understand why you are asking me to prove the premise of the parent poster. I thought I was answering the question why he might have been downvoted, not whether what he was proposing was feasible. Maybe you could explain why you are asking me this. It seems you agree that a map targeting certain groups of people as likely of having covid-19 would be a bad outcome, isn't it? If so, you could probably understand why he might be downvoted.

> quite possibly we will find out that the virus was spreading super widely in certain areas

Emphasis mine

Because mapping out the geographic locations of those who were infected could hurt the economy of the blighted areas even further.

Counterpoint: https://www.zerohedge.com/health/gilead-pours-cold-water-rep... (a hedge fund wanted to get out of a position and got someone to do some heavily biased reporting)

It's a dirty game out there.

So, if there was an epidemic of pneumonia going around, would you count that as a death due to pneumonia, and then use that statistic to help justify lock downs and enforced social distancing?

Because that is what is happening when you take an extremely sick person who finally died and slap a "death by covid-19" label on them.

> If you really wanted to play around with the numbers like what you're suggesting, you could easily make it so covid-19 causes zero deaths just by looking far back enough to find a contributing factor. Like age, immune system issues, other injuries, obesity etc.

Or that cancer causes zero deaths...

If the total cost is under $6 trillion, I think the Fed can swing it.

> Someone has cancer for six months, gets COVID and dies 17 days later and now Tucker Carlson is here telling me not to count that death.

If someone has cancer and then gets a bad cold and dies, what should the cause of death be? Or what if they fell, etc.?

I disagree, software scales much better than, say, designing a bridge.

> All absolutes are wrong.

Except that one, I suppose...

I think we never should have climbed down from the trees.