Arf! Arf!

513 posts

Arf! Arf! banner
Arf! Arf!

Arf! Arf!

@None1683191

Bio in bio.

Katılım Temmuz 2023
276 Takip Edilen20 Takipçiler
Arf! Arf!
Arf! Arf!@None1683191·
@cafreiman Yes, but this logic does have its limit with most people. Like, (1) donating a million dollars to battered women's shelters + beating your wife is better in consequentialist terms than (2) doing neither, but not many people are cool with (1).
English
0
0
0
170
Arf! Arf!
Arf! Arf!@None1683191·
@panickssery @marcusabramovi1 If I'm reading certain cues correctly: it's like, you can't just declare that the non-aggression principle trumps everything. ;)
English
0
0
0
18
Arf! Arf!
Arf! Arf!@None1683191·
@panickssery @marcusabramovi1 If "norms of non-interference" counts as something like, just a consideration, then fair enough. Interesting insight. But if it's supposed to be decisive, then need non-arbitrary elevation of that consideration.
English
1
0
0
20
Arf! Arf!
Arf! Arf!@None1683191·
@panickssery @marcusabramovi1 ...in some way (such that there are constraints on action that are waived when a desire to strike justifies a preemptive strike), but other moral considerations are tossed aside. "Rational" is very slippery.
English
0
0
0
8
Arf! Arf!
Arf! Arf!@None1683191·
@panickssery @marcusabramovi1 Clever. I guess if the OP was implying the position is pure stupidity, independent of moral considerations, then fair enough. But by that standard, it's *rational* to ban any competitor, so the desire to ban factory farming is superfluous. So, "rational" includes morality...
English
2
0
1
41
Arf! Arf!
Arf! Arf!@None1683191·
@ggreenwald This "role" is not a plot; it's a consequence of no viable alternative (unless you count getting Jill Stein to 3%).
English
0
0
0
139
Arf! Arf!
Arf! Arf!@None1683191·
@RevSnow67 @politicalmath Agree. Bernie had won the first 3 and the party establishment was freaking out. Once Biden won SC, he was the guy and everyone else was told to drop out.
English
0
0
0
17
Rev Snow
Rev Snow@RevSnow67·
@None1683191 @politicalmath Whatever forces dictated that Harris would take the baton in 2024. I believe those same forces brought the hammer down on those contesting Biden.
English
1
0
1
17
PoIiMath
PoIiMath@politicalmath·
If you took the top 5 names on here, you might actually have an interesting and meaningful Dem primary for the first time in 20 years
Kalshi Politics@KalshiPolitics

Who will run for the Democratic Presidential nomination in 2028? Odds: 🟦 Gavin Newsom: 87% 🟦 Pete Buttigieg: 84% 🟦 J.B. Pritzker: 80% 🟦 Josh Shapiro: 79% 🟦 Andy Beshear: 77% 🟦 Rahm Emanuel: 70% 🟦 Cory Booker: 69% 🟦 Chris Murphy: 68% 🟦 Gretchen Whitmer: 67% 🟦 Ro Khanna: 67% 🟦 Kamala Harris: 63% 🟦 Mark Kelly: 63% 🟦 Mitch Landrieu: 62% 🟦 Ruben Gallego: 56% 🟦 Wes Moore: 53% 🟦 Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: 50% 🟦 Elissa Slotkin: 50% 🟦 Jared Polis: 50% 🟦 Jon Ossoff: 42% 🟦 Abigail Spanberger: 36% 🟦 Raphael Warnock: 31% 🟦 Chris Van Hollen: 29% 🟦 Phil Murphy: 29% 🟦 Dean Philips: 28% All others under 25%

English
15
2
88
18.5K
Arf! Arf!
Arf! Arf!@None1683191·
@politicalmath Hilary was probably initially happy to have Bernie running to keep his voters in the Dem structure instead of wandering off to the next incarnation of Nader.
English
0
0
0
16
Arf! Arf!
Arf! Arf!@None1683191·
@politicalmath Nitpicky, but "cleared the field," which fits 2016, isn't the best description of 2020, in which everyone ran and then coalesced behind Biden to stop Bernie.
English
2
0
1
218
Arf! Arf!
Arf! Arf!@None1683191·
@ZaidJilani Because many leftist Americans reason backwards from race.
English
0
0
0
42
Zaid Jilani
Zaid Jilani@ZaidJilani·
Why is abolishing prisons even a "left wing" position in America? Mexican socialists don't want to defund the police. Norway and Finland and Sweden have prisons. This is weirdo American anarchy-leftism.
English
34
6
138
30.2K
Zaid Jilani
Zaid Jilani@ZaidJilani·
AOC has argued for prison/police elimination, said we should give unlawful immigrants free health care. Both these things are on video and are nonstarters for a Democratic president.
English
53
20
339
132.5K
Arf! Arf!
Arf! Arf!@None1683191·
@MeghanEMurphy By that logic shouldn't that have meant that GMO fruit companies would now control fruit?
English
0
0
0
6
Meghan Murphy
Meghan Murphy@MeghanEMurphy·
@None1683191 Because "meat" will be controlled by the corporation that owns the trademark
English
1
0
0
18
Meghan Murphy
Meghan Murphy@MeghanEMurphy·
“Things are bad already so we may as well give up and let Meat™ have at it” is a poor approach… obviously I want and advocate for ranchers and farmers to be able to produce and sell good quality, non factory farmed meat, and that people have access to good, local meat. Allowing lab grown meat will ensure no one has access to actual good meat except maybe the elite, and that corporations have full control over production/access
Zaid Jilani@ZaidJilani

Oh come on a handful of companies already control what meat people have access to. Thats why 99 percent of meat is factory farmed and full of chemical engineering. simping for Big Ag.

English
2
0
4
1.7K
Arf! Arf!
Arf! Arf!@None1683191·
@adamjohnsonCHI Could you spell this out more? Promoting opposing aid to Israel is a scam to direct energy in ineffective directions?
English
1
0
0
1.1K
Adam Johnson
Adam Johnson@adamjohnsonCHI·
Yes the line that the “US must end aid to Israel” did indeed originate from Netanyahu and the Israeli security consensus which is why J Street adopted it and promoted as a progressive stance when it’s a fairly transparent counterinsurgency PR tactic
60 Minutes@60Minutes

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu tells 60 Minutes he wants Israel to eventually stop relying on U.S. military aid: “It's time that we weaned ourselves from the remaining military support.” 60Minutes.com

English
12
218
1.2K
49.4K
Arf! Arf!
Arf! Arf!@None1683191·
@fawfulfan Hear you. Though if it's only a public health concern, then I guess it could be justified by "govt shouldn't be complicit in bad choices" or "I'll use what means are available to change behavior," but seems unjust if think SNAP is as legitimate as earned income.
English
0
0
0
56
Matthew Chapman
Matthew Chapman@fawfulfan·
@None1683191 Maybe that's how some people look at it, but not me. I'm a staunch opponent of work requirements for most public benefit programs, for example. SNAP included. But I support a SNAP soda ban, primarily on public health grounds.
English
1
0
3
185
Matthew Chapman
Matthew Chapman@fawfulfan·
"Wealthier people," didn't deem soda unhealthy. The entire medical establishment and decades of scientific research did. Should SNAP also be usable to purchase cigarettes? Weed? Lottery tickets? SNAP is for nutrition, it's literally in the name. Soda isn't nutrition.
Toshi9227@ShutupToshi9227

@fawfulfan The idea that poor people can only get something that brings them joy if wealthier people deem it healthy enough is so fucking dystopian. Life is hard man. If someone working 3 jobs to support their family wants to use my tax dollars to buy a soda, they fucking can, I don’t care

English
21
7
51
7.8K

Keşfet

@cafreiman @panickssery @marcusabramovi1 @ggreenwald @RadioFreeTom @anneapplebaum @RevSnow67 @politicalmath