insurrection

if you want to just live in your feelings about this instead of relying on the science, I can’t stop you. but anyone else who reads this should understand that what you claimed simply isn’t scientific fact.

this isn’t proof of understanding personal mortality

we have something we haven’t been able to prove exists in any other animal: knowledge that we, ourselves, might die. animal cognitive behaviorists call this understanding personal mortality, and every time they get close to it, I’ve seen them go out of their way to say they don’t have proof any other animal understands personal mortality.

if you have an animal cognitive behavioral study that claims otherwise, I’d be happy to read it.

say what you want to say. I don’t care for your interrogation.

sure: people are different and unpredictable.

this isn’t proof of causation. it’s pure post hoc ergo propter hoc

“Vegetables don’t care if they die, but animals do. Animals don’t like dying.”

there simply isn’t proof for claims like this

and yet you are only advocating that English speaking lemmy users stop procreating.

actual eugenics propaganda

it used to be the department of war, before we got savvy to propaganda

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United/_States/_Department/_of/_War

sounds like galleanism with extra German baggage

how do I find this guy and tell him to fuck all the way off

That is the old way to vote. Voting and having orderly hand offs of power is the new way, dragging people out of their estates and hanging them upside down from lamp posts is the old way.

“what is different about a pig that makes it less than morally bad to kill the pig?”

oh, the classic rhetorical trap of “name the trait” which always devolves into a no-true-scotsman. on its face it’s purely a spectrum fallacy. the inability to identify a singular trait or even a set of traits that differentiate humans from pigs doesn’t change the fact that they are fundamentally different.

please, no one fall for this line of discussion. it’s just an exercise in shaming and time-wasting.

consciousness doesn’t grant agency. free will does. if we can’t agree on this, then go on making up your own definitions.

if you’re not choosing how to change your environment, you have no agency. rock slides change their environment but they have no agency.

if it’s meaningless, why are you so focused on trying to define it and defend your position? you must recognize this is only rational if you have agency.

>I oppose fascists being tolerated because it can lead to fascism

but you can’t choose whether you oppose it. your opposition, according to you, is just an emotion you feel as you ride your meat suit to the grave. and fascists can’t choose whether to be fascist. and the very act of toleration can have no will behind it, so it can also not be good or evil.

it can’t be bad if it’s just a natural phenomenon like gravity. it just is.

you really don’t believe you had any choice but to write that response and send it?