Oh damn i didn’t realise there was something comparable already in there.

Do you have the associated laws that precipitated those changes, i can't seem to find any reference to them ?

Hope this helps <3

It does and your points are valid, but i'll respond to a couple if you don't mind.

Honestly, if someone is truly aware of the horrors of the animal agriculture industry and is totally fine with it, I would be very, very surprised.

As would i (outside of the sociopath possibility you also mention) , i was thinking more along the lines of people who fully understand and then accept it as something they can live with.

The comparisons of the meat industry to electronics i mostly agree with, except for this last part, not because it's incorrect as such, i just didn't provide enough context.

Melting metal, pouring it into moulds to make circuitry, etc. doesn’t hurt anyone directly, it’s capitalism and the drive for maximal profits which cause issues in electronics. I’m a huge proponent for the abolition of capitalism for this reason too.

I mentioned electronics because it's easy for people to at least shallowly understand how much they use them, what's not so obvious is the horrors of how they are produced, in a similar way to how people as a whole don't really understand how the meat industry is run.

Long before the metal pouring and assembly you have the rare earth elements industry that uses horrific limb-removing slave work camps to extract these minerals. it's not all of them, but it's significantly more than zero.

There are also cartel like warlords involved in some of the extraction sites.

Think of it as a similar situation to conflict diamonds, but more entrenched and critical to nation state interests.

I mentioned cobalt because it's the easiest to find credible documentaries, reports and discussions about, but it's not just cobalt.

Honestly a lot of the big industries are supported by modern day slavery and inhumane conditions or experimentation, i would also assume that extends to the non-human animals as well but i can't honestly speak to that.

Textiles (clothes, shoes, trainers), agriculture (avocado's have cartels because of course they do, coffee), pharmaceuticals, non-meat food (chocolate for example).

I keep coming back to the phrase "There is no ethical consumerism under capitalism" which aligns with your stance on the abolition of capitalism, but i tend to think of it as there is no ethical consumerism in general (at least right now) because i can't think of a way we could ethically overcome the sheer density of population using the level of logistical technology we have available and that's not even taking into account the (subjective) apparent nature of how human's deal with such large populations.

But me not being able to see how we make the jump from now to a post scarcity, fully equitable society is almost certainly just a failure of my imagination.

My main question is how do people seem to be able to decide they can live with limbless kid electronics but slave labour clothes are too far, cartel avocado's are an unfortunate necessity but meat is monstrous.

I understand that not all of those things are equal and battles need to be picked but it doesn't seem like the subjective severity is the deciding factor and how are the battles picked.

Inaction when action is an option is still a choice.

One of the major premises of the trolley problem is the choice.

It's very specifically a scenario where everything is a choice.

The only way to not choose a scenario option is to not participate at all.

There is also the concept of "positive" grooming, for instance a child given specific education and resources to provide an advantage in something like politics could be said to be being "groomed" for politics or leadership.

I'd say the idea of grooming is more intentional than just regular child-raising, but that might be subjective.

As i said though, the current common usage is almost always negative and sexual in nature, it's just not a requirement.

They are not. Both are deviations from stated outcome, but not stated intent.

That's fair, there is still an onus on proof of incompetence being the driver of the outcome rather than some other reason.

People on your side of this seem to think that, because politicians are saying that something will happen and you disagree with that, they must actually also believe that the outcome will be as you believe, but are lying about it.

That's a bold and incorrect assumption, i do disagree with the act because it's stupid and doesn't do anything the might be even remotely constructive but i don't hold them to an imaginary belief system that adheres directly with my own, as stated in the first response, my predictive analysis of what i expect to happen is based on their prior history and the outcomes of their previous decisions.

It's not "I believe this thing so it must be true"

its

"Their recent (and somewhat mid-term) track record points to them making decisions based on deception and self gain, so i would guess that trend will continue".

If you think past behaviour as a partial basis for predicting future behaviour is poor reasoning, I'm not sure we're going to agree on much of anything here.

I think you need a good reason to conclude that this can’t possibly be a case of politicians disagreeing about the outcome

** gestures vaguely at recent historical decisions in general and multiple attempts at this type of control specifically **

and no-one has come up with such a good reason - no-one has said, “actually, the minister for DCMS was reported to have met with the bosses of Google, Microsoft and Facebook and a source in the department said they lobbied for age-verification”.

I've specifically said i don't think big tech is the emphasis here, so I'm not going to provide proof of a position I'm not taking.

All anyone has given is the same argument I have been pointing out:

age verification is bad

politicians must know it’s bad OR politicians are corrupt

therefore politicians supported this for corrupt reasons.

I've done no such thing, I've specifically been talking about the prediction that politicians are generally untrustworthy (and also incompetent at it) based on past behaviour.

Can I walk you again through how this argument does not work?

If you want to spend time arguing a point i wasn't actually contesting, feel free.

I'm legitimately up for discussing this point instead, but I'm not sure it'll be worth anyone's time if we fundamentally disagree on what constitutes poor reasoning.

the majority of the population doesn’t identify this as being nazism.

That's a big claim for no citation.

Well, at least they aren't pretending to accept longer passwords but actually truncating it, like they used to in hotmail and live.

They were silently truncating the passwords to something like the first 16 characters, the rest was ignored.

Apologies, i cannot divulge that information as per the NDA i signed at the time.

/s

a sequel is in the works : https://www.remedygames.com/games/control-2

Nope. I’d declare said statement propandistic shite unless they can prove they are privy to what God does or does not allow.

Most communication is propaganda to some degree, you'll need to be more specific in the particular viewpoint you have here if you want a useful response.

Prove that god exists and i'll immediately get on to finding out what they do or do not allow.

Just so we're clear, faith isn't proof, in fact its definition is almost universally "belief, in the absence of proof"

Lots of people believing also doesn't equal more factually correct, it just means more people believe.

What do you think churches, mosques and temples are? “Non-physical”? Howzabout the Inquisition? Or Saudi Arabia’s “religious police?” Or the vast riches the Catholic Church has stolen over the centuries? I’d say no - they are pretty darn “physical.”

Correct, you have accurately described physical objects, not a single one of which i have denied the existence of.

If you could point out which one of those is the physical manifestation of a being that "would or would not allow" something then we can get on to the conversation part.

Just in case there's any confusion, i'm all aboard the " organised religion is mostly bullshit people doing horrific things on a large scale over even longer time frames" train.

Note the "organised", it's important.

Also the "religions are just socially acceptable cults" train.

It might seem like I'm on two trains but in reality it's a venn diagram in the shape of a train and it's basically a complete overlap.

See the above.

The above wasn't addressing any of the points so I'm not sure how it relates to this one either, but feel free to let me know.

I’m not exactly sure what you are trying to say here. I don’t see how ascribing magical powers to religious people changes the fundamental idiocy of the quote you used.

I genuinely think you are misunderstanding what was being said here, intentionally or otherwise.

Just in case it's unintentional, I'll try again, but with more describing.

The vs statement was used as an illustration of the difference between the description of a tangible manifestation of a being vs the description of actions of a groups of people with "belief" in a being.

One of those things is a "being"/manifestation performing an action, the other is a group performing actions due to a shared belief or "construct".

Also the first "quote i used" was from the original post, the second was a comparative example, neither of which i was stating as fact, purely as a demonstrative example.

While i agree with this and i do block people, regularly, if you aren't paying attention this is exactly how you get echo chambers.

Not suggesting i have a good solution, because i don't.

Best i can do is try to differentiate between "opinion that is not my own" and "flagrant arsehole".

I like to think it's the difference between good faith and bad faith arguments, but that still assumes i can tell the difference consistently.

Shit is hard yo.

I wouldn't expect logical thinking to be a strong characteristic in someone who'd threaten kids over a videogame.