Cool, I feel the same way about them.

Your hormones are out of whack. Get yourself tested. It’s not expensive and unaddressed endocrine problems are really shitty.

Fun fact, the moral permissibility of abortion has far and away the most consensus among philosophers. Literally philosophers are more confident that abortion should be permissible than that the external world exists.

As such, you can use opinions on abortion as a litmus test for sociopathic tendency since it’s such an easy moral question. In doing so, however, you’d be confronting the fact that 30% of Americans are moral black holes from whom no rational opinion can be extracted. In that context, slavery, misogyny, religion, and all the evils of humanity suddenly make sense.

deleted by creator

“Wisdom” in this case meaning the prejudices accumulated over a lifetime? According to research, an average septuagenarian is more narcissistic, less literate, more bigoted, and less intelligent than the average teenager. Sometimes by multiple standard deviations. (I can provide sources).

Couple the Flynn effect with lead poisoning and you have a gap of almost 30 IQ points in some areas of the country.

By the way, have you ever seen an old person’s brain in an MRI? It’s missing like 20% of its volume.

deleted by creator

Daily reminder that the average 15 year old is smarter than the average 70 year old by literally any psychometric standard.

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

That’s one of the main reasons that the US is classified as a flawed democracy. A vote in California has something like 1/200th the influence on federal policy as a vote in Wyoming or Alaska.

“The Senate was designed, as part of the separation of powers, to check the impulses of the House and the popular will.”(1)

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

Now I know you didn’t think this response through. A nation isn’t a country? Tut tut.

Read that opening paragraph you quoted. It says nothing about Israel. It is an abstract moral rule. You ask yourself, “am I making a decision that will result in the deaths of more children?” If the answer is yes, you are making the wrong decision.

But let’s not pretend you read books.

deleted by creator

A person makes a decision. If that decision is almost certainly going to result in the deaths of children, it is the wrong decision. You will never face a simpler moral scenario than this.

People can argue about justifications in good faith, of course… although ironically in this case, we can’t even do that, since we both know that bombing Gaza does nothing to ameliorate the conflict and everything to exacerbate it.

Also, this isn’t a war. Wars are fought between nations, and Israel does not recognize Palestine’s sovereignty. Gaza has no self-determination. There’s no government. It is a prison full of children. An abomination for which no civilian living in Gaza bears any responsibility.

Lastly, nations don’t have rights. Nations are imaginary political constructs. People have rights, such as to defend themselves, as you say. However, bombing Gaza not only undermines Israel’s sovereignty by inciting an entire new generation of revulsion and hatred, it violates the rights of children not to be blown to bits. None of this is complex. None of it is morally ambiguous.

As for those “Western allies” you mentioned: you don’t have any. The religious boomers are on their way out, and nobody with half a brain or under the age of 40 supports Israel here in the West. They did this to themselves by slaughtering thousands of children utterly pointlessly. I mean what do you expect?

Lastly, religion is a monstrous evil. If you’re religious, please stop. Please.

Reddit would ban you for that comment, despite the fact that it’s literally true.

Killing children is bad: this is not something over which genuine disagreement could possibly arise.

I mean, aren’t we literally against Hamas because they kill children? What is so complex about being consistent with the application of your moral rules?

deleted by creator