If you saw the build quality of Teslas, and his handling of Twitter, and him calling a diver a paedo, and you still thought “I should let that man perform medical experiments on me”, then you probably fucking deserve it tbh.
Just go for it. What’s the worst that can happen? You get double brain damage?
Eh. He’s an asshole of the highest order but I imagine some people are willing to take the risk, given the impact it could have on their lives.
I’m talking people who just exist at the moment and something like this might be beneficial to them.
To be 100% clear, because yall some bitches at times. I find Elon an abhorrent person. Twitter is wank, Tesla is dead in the water and the boring company is just that.
On one hand, yea I don’t want brain damage. On the other hand, if it means I can move robotic limbs after being paralyzed, maybe it’s still worth it?
Like the idea of having neural interfaces that don’t penetrate the brain is obviously great, but if that tech doesn’t come for another 50 years, what are the current people going to do instead?
I’m not on the waiting list for Neuralink, but if I’m gonna be honest, the hate for it is over amplified.
I don’t think the concept is bad. I take a medicine that may give me cognition problems when I’m very old, but it’s remarkably effective for me right now and provides a significant quality of life improvement. So, I’ve chosen to stay on it.
That’s different I think though from Neuralink as it is today. There need to be stringent safety measures in place and controls on testing. We’ve come a long way on neurology, but we still have a lot we don’t understand.
I think it’s 'cause we know more about him. I think if we knew he was a whimsical dude and legitimately trying to help people instead of enriching himself, we’d see these pics and give him a bit more of a pass.
I’m saying that they don’t bring in enough money to truly be a no kill org. Essentially they are saying one thing and not doing it themselves.
As far as the org, it’s my belief that it started out with people who genuinely cared for animal welfare and wanted to do something about it. Over time the psychos edged out the good folk and now we get idiots breaking into university primate labs and releasing monkeys on the street.
This comment chain is you defending PETA having high euthanasia statistics due to euthanizing animals they had taken from families yards and from homeless individuals. You had suggested that these euthanasias were mercy killings, and when another commenter pointed out that pets can’t be considered suffering even under the loosest definition of the word, you posed a rhetorical question in bad faith. If you actually wanted to argue that PETA’s euthanasias are only done in situations of suffering animals, you would have just said that and perhaps included a source for that claim like the initial commenter did for theirs.
The Socratic method involves asking questions to lead on discussion and participation. You’re trying to discourage discussion by putting contributors on the defensive with an ad hominem disguised as a (loaded) question.
,If you can’t answer questions that make you uncomfortable to answer, that’s something you should reflect on.
Again, you’re attacking the other person instead of their argument.
It doesn’t make your point any stronger. It makes people unfamiliar with debates defensive from being personally attacked, and it makes those familiar with debates realize that they’re wasting their time.
Lol, I think you forgot to sign into the other account because this chain is me talking to your pivot account.
But, no, I am not attacking you. i am merely pointing out that you have a formed opinion without being able to answer incredibly simple questions about your stance.
You know that “the other person” can be used in a general sense, right?
Aside, why would I engage in an ernest discussion with someone who doesn’t appear willing to accept that the other person in the discussion holds any stance different than the one they are perceived as having.
It would be a waste of my time to take this seriously, and I’m already having fun playing fallacy bingo.
I think you might need to look up what a Gish gallop is, because you will almost certainly find you have applied it to a situation in which it doesn’t belong.
You haven’t answered any questions though. How many pets taken and euthanized the same day would be acceptable to you? How many animals that are adoptable, not ill, don’t have behavioral problems, and aren’t elderly should they be allowed to euthanize? Should they have to retract their ad campaign that ran for years claiming a link between autism and milk or should they be able to quietly redirect it and not confront it because the “science” was almost as laughable as the link between vaccines and autism?
You’ll willingly answer, so I am eagerly awaiting answers rather than redirecting or trying to be the Glen Beck of PETA by JAQing off (I’m just asking questions!).
Ah, so you’re not willing to answer questions. I don’t engage with lying pieces of shit. If you had, you could have changed hearts and minds. Instead you’re as worthless as PETA.
I think you’re just being obtuse and pedantic for your own sake, if you’re really curious you could very easily look this information up. Please stop being like this, you don’t have to be this way. Touch grass for fucks sake, good luck out there, must be tough being an insufferable git.
Except you’re not causing anyone to question their beliefs, you’re just being intentionally obnoxious. If you wanted to provide some counter evidence to their point that would be a solid way to cause people to reconsider. As is I doubt you are being honest with your intention, even if to yourself. Maybe talk about it in therapy?
No, it’s actually more your general tone and lack of desire to actually put forth any stance of your own that I find obnoxious, but go off bud. Hope you’re enjoying yourself, what a way to spend an afternoon, just responding to dozens of people being as annoying as you possibly can. You can deny it obviously, but I do genuinely hope you find better ways of spending your time.
I think my stance is clear: you guys are using meat industry propaganda to push forth a narrative and are unable to defend that narrative from the simplest of questions.
I could also say that you are obnoxious and could spend your time better, but I wouldn’t do that to somebody I am making the choice to engage with. Maybe I’m just a nicer person.
Euthanasia as in animals, no matter the quality of life, adoptability, and years left, are put down by the thousands because they’re inconvenient to keep alive and get adopted while PETA preaches that killing animals is wrong. Also, did you read the bit about them kidnapping animals from kids and old people?
Plus they’re cowards without the courage of their convictions. When I was growing up their protests included throwing red paint on people in fur but they wouldn’t do it to someone in biker leathers. One got them shunned and laughed at, the other would get them killed like the animals they stole.
TL;DR their whole schtick is to either destroy others’ property or steal loved members of families who have fur while killing many more animals than they save.
TL;DR: Domesticated animals deserve death. More specifically, because they letting them live is “inhumane” because they won’t thrive without human influence—which they’re strictly against.
IMO: These people are fucking psychopaths.
Edit: Yes, that specific site is sponsored by the meat industry. I didn’t think it needed to be said, but don’t take sensational topics at face value and read any receipts provided (which they did). Or, use Google and find other sources (that are also probably backed by corporate or political interests). In either case, PETA has made it pretty clear that they’re hypocrites who are euthanizing healthy animals.
If you had not plugged your metaphorical ears and doubled down on an ad hominem, you would have seen that some of those receipts are self-reported filings from PETA themselves to the government.
I would link the definition of “ad hominem” for you, but let’s be real: you’re not going to read that either.
It’s an ad hominem to assert that I hold an unethical belief and then use said assertion to bolster your point.
I said PETA are psychopaths for needlessly killing animals, yet you assume that I’m not equally against killing animals for personal pleasure and consumerism.
No offense intended to vegetarians, but it’s a half measure if they’re doing it for ethical or climate reasons.
I genuinely do not care about that website; all that matters is their receipts. I care that PETA are hypocrites who needlessly kill living creatures while preaching about the ethics or lack thereof of needlessly killing living creatures.
Are you trying to suggest that the guy who thought driving Teslas in tunnels underground was the most efficient method of transportation shouldn’t be trusted with inserting chips into people’s brains?
He didn't actually think it was the most efficient. It's way worse. He knew he could get a proposed high speed rail line killed so it wouldn't cut into his car sales. He did not care one bit what happened after it died. Everything else was his PR team.
The train from LA to Vegas is under construction. The problem in Vegas is that the casinos don’t want you leaving their property unless you’re headed to another property they also own. Musk’s tunnel just goes to the convention center and is obviously not a serious solution.
Add comment