Baby steps.

All private ownership of land is deeply morally suspect. Nobody made that valley, someone was violent enough to make a claim stick. Usually several people, over a long period.

Now that he’s convicted, an interesting question might be “is there enough evidence to convict him in other countries who have extradition treaties with South Korea?”…

I have limited sympathy for people who make their living by bothering people.

Yes, you have been very clear about your conclusions. And completely opaque about everything else.

At this point I’m pretty much convinced… that you’re very carefully not saying anything about “why” you think it’s bad he was killed.

You’ve given nobody any reason to agree with you, and nothing to disagree with. So all I can say is “Yes, that is your opinion” and move on.

I clearly stated my point. Killing someone who kills a lot of other people is murder. But it being murder isn’t evidence it’s wrong. You dismissed that without addressing it.

You’ve never said one thing about why you think it’s wrong, other than that it’s murder. I figured you were a hardcore deontologist. What is there to discuss? It breaks the law and is therefore evil from that point of view.

I asked for more info on why, you refused. What do you think I am to talk about here? Am I meant to guess your thoughts and argue with that?

I got made fun of for crying when my grandfather died. Over 30 years ago. So I stopped.

Nobody was confused about your opinion on that.

You keep telling us what your opinion is as if that will convince us to agree. You’re not god handing me stone tablets on the mountain. You need an argument, not just a claim.

Technically you only need a launch tower designed in such a way that none of its shrapnel damages the rocket.

And we have the materials science for the plate.

I never claimed they were or weren’t, nor have I argued that they were good or bad. I was just pointing out a technicality, just as you were.

It’s murder to shoot a dictator. It’s not murder to gun down unarmed protesters. “Murder” does not carry much moral weight, in my opinion. It just means you killed someone the state didn’t want killed, or in a way they don’t permit.

Like when you cancel the medical coverage of people with cancer, or string the ill along with exhaustive paperwork hoping they die before you have to pay out. Not murder.

Logistics at a certain point does not care what economic model you follow. Someone has to plant the crops and do all the other work that leads to people being fed, clothed, and housed under any system.

If your demographics are such that there are not enough people of working age to take care of those too old to work, you’re going to have the kind of problems that led other human societies to kill their elders.

It’d be great if we could automate our way out of this, but I don’t see that happening soon enough.

NATO is pushing a commitment to a minimum of 5% of GDP on defense.

Which, admittedly even the USA does not do. But in the 60s it was north of 9%.

Most of the cost of things is the embedded cost of labor. Even minerals in a lot of cases. There are a lot of deposits of pretty much everything we could be mining but aren’t because of the cost.

One business may only have 25% labor costs, but the suppliers also have labor costs, and their suppliers, all the way down the line. And 25% is on the low side. Even rent has labor costs embedded.

Not this quarter it isn’t! (Until it suddenly is.)

And water is wet. It’s murder because it’s illegal. That’s what murder is, legislation.

In Arkansas it is illegal to pronounce “Arkansas” incorrectly.

You may just be having trouble with the idea that people can reasonably and seriously see the world from a point of view other than your own.

Or it’s all a bit!

Who can say? No matter how I answer it’s not really evidence, you can draw a 2x2 decision matrix here for both answers and both possibilities. All four outcomes are plausible. Choose the answer that makes you happiest.

My man, it’s a stance on a theological issue. You don’t want to admit that, and I’m not going to force you. What does going “Yah-huh / Nuh-uh” back and forth forever do for anyone?

People make real friends online. Who they don’t know in person. You’d be telling your child to toughen up and get new friends.

If someone personally screws you over, then you kill them, it’s just normal revenge.

The saying itself is a pithy dig at teachers, it’s meant to demean their skill at what they’re teaching.

It’s a witticism, not a measured statement of truth.

I dunno, that depends on how you look at it. From a certain point of view it provides at least one point of evidence to the idea we may be close to our carrying capacity of under-educated people.

I know this is a bit of an extreme example. Leaving an abusive spouse leads to suicides. You can’t blanket assign responsibility in all cases. It needs to be reasonable.

In cases of targeted harassment, sure. I think cases like that have gone to trial.

But if seeing someone walk into a book signing by a woman with regressive views on trans related stuff tips someone over the edge to suicide I don’t feel that’s reasonably assignable blame. Seeing J.K.Rowling succeed is such a minor thing compared to the child raping cannibal cults we have running things. It just does not even register.

Calls to violence are outright crimes where I live, whether any violence occurs or not. I think you might get a lighter sentence if nothing happens, not sure. Just like you don’t get off with no charges if you shoot at someone and miss.