I mean, I think you’re hugely discounting psychological barriers, if nothing else. Most people are decent and wouldn’t steal the blanket, even if they wanted it.
Ownership of things is a pretty intrinsic part of human existence, and humans are deeply social creatures. There are a lot of non-physical aspects that influence people’s concept of ownership.
I think my issue is less with the idea that property is protected with violence.
The point of the original comic though was that one is justified in using violence to take from the rich because they only have/maintain their property with violence.
But if all property is maintained by violence, am I not then justified in taking any property I see fit? If so, is it free reign to take the property of those whose ability to protect it with violence is minimal? Am I justified in stealing from children or the disabled, since they are protecting their property with the threat of violence?
The fact of the matter is that none of us want to live in that world, so we give over that threat of violence to the state. The state holds a monopoly on violence and notionally uses it to meet out it’s use in an equitable and just way.
When the state is bad at that, that can be reason to work towards the restructure of the state, but it’s never a reason (imo) to simply violate the law.
It seems to me what you (and Biden) are saying is that things have progressed to the point where Hamas (and by extension the Palestinian people) are unwilling to reach a peaceful solution.
If that’s the case, what should Israel actually do? What terms should they offer? And what if Hamas rejects those terms? Is there a solution to this problem that actually solves anything?
I mean, I recall seeing a ton of press a while back that the percentage of the Texas power grid that was renewable keeps growing because it’s more economically viable than traditional power plants.
So, like, he may not be wrong. Solar and wind just keep getting cheaper. It’s not like businesses will spend extra money to burn coal, just to spite the environment.
I like Chase Oliver. I don’t agree with him on all the issues by a long long shot, but I think he seems like a genuine dude, and I understand his positions, even when I disagree with them. And he’s ideologically consistent if nothing else.
I’m in a state where the Electorial College is a hard lock anyway, so I’ll probably vote for him since my vote doesn’t matter otherwise. Just as a protest vote if nothing else.
Plus, if they can get enough of the popular vote they’ll get federal funding in the next election cycle. The Libertarian Party definitely has an extremist wing to it I can’t stand, but there’s something to be said for rewarding them for picking a reasonable human being for a candidate lol.
Yeah, I’m in a bluer state than California my guy. Think, like, Maryland or Massachusetts.
I feel pretty safe voting for Chase Oliver, lol.
Not that I’d feel bad voting for him in an Alabama or Mississippi either.
Hoping to flip it someday doesn’t change the fact that when polling suggests that it’s going 90% one way, hoping that maybe you’ll flip it this cycle is delusional.
I mean, I think that’s what the majority of people are advocating for in green circles too, no? “No New Coal” and all that?
I don’t hear much advocacy for tearing down working power plants.
Power plants don’t exactly have an infinite shelf life. They get run down and need to be replaced. Eventually only building green leads to only having green.
Combine that with the ever increasing cost of actually running a coal fire plant. Shipping in hundreds of tons of coal is eventually gonna get way more expensive than operating a solar or wind farm. At that point the business owners will likely tear the plant down of their own volition to replace it with the cheaper option. (Though that will be admittedly a little slower, as you have to amortize in the construction and downtime costs.)
Did you mean to reply to me? I don’t see how that is relevant.
Like, sure, oil and gas companies are corrupt and doing immoral things to prop up their industry.
But if a coal plant can sell me electricity for 5¢/kwh and the windmill company can sell it to me for 2¢/kwh, I don’t care what immoral stuff they try, the consumer is gonna buy the cheaper option.
Historically fossil fuels have been the cheaper option, and most of the immoral stuff was to avoid bad press. That strategy doesn’t work if you’re the more expensive option. The market will in fact work for the best in that scenario.
Which isn’t to say the free market always makes the “correct” decision. Fossil fuels are a great example, as they have continued to be the primary form of energy for the past 100+yrs, since it was cheap. But it looks like natural market forces are bringing us around to green slowly but surely, and Chase Oliver might be right that this is a problem that will, at this point, largely solve itself.
But does it protect a company who is throwing out food that someone then eats? They aren’t a good Samaritan in that case.
And even if it’s lawful federally, they may run against local ordinances.
And even if every single thing is above board, that still doesn’t stop them from getting sued. It just means they’d win. But legal costs being what they are, it’s probably cheaper to just run off anybody who might be litigious before something can happen.
So, first and foremost it is important to recognize we are having a definition argument. The crux of our disagreement is over the definition of “science,” specifically as it relates to the act of doing it.
Now, obviously anyone can claim that any word means anything they want. I can claim that the definition of “doing science” is making grilled cheese sandwiches. That doesn’t make it so.
So, as with all arguments over the definition of words, I find appealing to the dictionary a good place to start. www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/scienceWhich, having read through all the possible definitions, does not seem to carry any connotation of mandatory collaboration.
Now, the dictionary is obviously not the be all and end all. Words have colloquial meanings that are sometimes not captured, or nuance can be lost in transcribing the straight meaning of the word. But I think that the onus is on you to justify why you believe that meaning is lost.
And note, what I’m not arguing is that science isn’t collaborative. Of course it is. There are huge benefits to collaboration, and it is very much the norm. But you have stated an absolute. “Science isn’t science without collaboration.” And that is the crux of our disagreement.
And as to why I wouldn’t just call it “research.” First, I see no reason to. By both my colloquial definition and the one in the dictionary (by my estimation), it is in fact science. But, more importantly, if we take your definition, you are relegating the likes of great scientists like Newton, Cavendish, Mendel, and Killing to the title of mere “researchers.” And I find the idea of calling any of those greats anything short of a scientist absurdly reductive.
If you aren’t saying that “science isn’t science without collaboration,” can you give an example of something that is science without collaboration? I only ask because you state that’s not what you’re saying, but follow it up with what, to my attempt at reading comprehension, is you just restating the thing you said you aren’t saying.
And I would argue science done in secret can have enormous impacts beyond “simply profits.” The Manhattan Project for example. I think it would be absurd to say what was going on there was anything but science, but there was no collaboration with the greater scientific community or intent to share their findings.
And look, of course you can be a researcher without being a scientist. Historians are researchers but not scientists obviously. But when what you are researching is physics and natural sciences, you are a scientist. That’s what the word literally means. When your definition requires you to eliminate Sir Isaac Newton, maybe it’s your definition that’s wrong.
You say you see no problem with calling an apple a fruit when broadly speaking. Neither do I. But that doesn’t mean that I wouldn’t be absolutely delusional to insist that an apple wasn’t actually an apple.
Do you also assert that my other two examples aren’t science?
If so, why?
If not, then I feel like my point still stands and don’t feel strongly enough to argue semantics over this particular one.
Ultimately this is a fight over the definition of words, and I think 99.9% of people (and the dictionary) would define all my examples as science. If you want to split the hair of saying, “that wasn’t science, it was just scientific research,” have at it, but I’ll just call you a pedant, lol.
I reread my post and I’m not sure what you took as aggressive? That I used the word delusional? I didn’t intend that to be harsh, but sorry if it came across that way.
But, in my experience, arguments over how words are defined are usually unproductive because language is inherently arbitrary, so I’m fine calling it here. I doubt we’d make any progress.
I hope life is treating you well and you have a pleasant evening.
Would you say that Sir Isaac Newton was a scientist? His research was almost entirely solo and was of limited release until much later.
Stephen Hawking has no published reproducible experiments as far as I’m aware. Is he not a scientist?
Is someone conducting research into a scientific field a scientist, or are they required to publish something before they can claim that title?
Honestly, I find arguments over how words are defined kind of exhausting, so maybe we should just cut to the heart of the matter. None of the definitions of science I can find in any dictionary include the word collaboration. Do you think that that’s a failure of the dictionary? And even if you do, do you think people who are operating under the belief that the dictionary definition is correct are wrong for doing so?
Absolutely agreed with the sentiment. Collaboration is integral to most scientific endeavors. Especially in the modern era. I think we’re in the same page on that point.
But, like, if the person had asserted something like, “grilled cheese is only grilled cheese when you eat it with tomato soup,” and then Elon responded with, “that’s a dumb take, since you can totally have a good grilled cheese without tomato soup,” I don’t think it’s “totally owning him” to list off a ton of reasons why you believe any grilled cheese without tomato soup is an invalid grilled cheese.
Like, we can all agree that grilled cheese is best with tomato soup. That doesn’t change the fact that arbitrarily changing the definition of grilled cheese to be “only when paired with tomato soup,” is actually just kinda dumb.
The Three Little Pigs
existentialcomics.com/comic/553
Rabbi coming thru with the language of fellow nerds to put things into context... (lemmy.world)
Good evening I hate Windows. Yes, I have to do this. (lemmy.ca)
Since people are curious Ill explain why:...
Read the Full Transcript of Joe Biden's Interview With TIME (time.com)
Libertarian Party nominates gay candidate for 2024 presidential election (www.washingtonblade.com)
Mexico's new president! (i.redd.it)
boingboing.net/…/mexico-elects-first-woman-presid…
How am I supposed to decide who to vote for in local elections?
I’ve never heard of these candidates, they have no party affiliation, and there’s almost no information about them online that I can find....
Spotify won’t open-source Car Thing, but starts refund process (arstechnica.com)
Man with suspended license appears in Michigan court over Zoom while driving (abc7.com)
cross-posted from: lemmy.world/post/15976653...
✨️ Finish him. ✨️ (mander.xyz)
Part 1: mander.xyz/post/13579080