Another thing, I remember when I used to live in a house with a cat and a lot of rodents. Our traps killed a couple a week and our cat killed probably not far from a thousand rodents and birds. We could have protected our house more from animals, and we could have had the cat indoors. Somehow cats killing animals is socially accepted, the same goes for rodents in your house.

Exactly this, I am not trying to say that it is not allowed to have the opinion that this was distasteful. I just find it interesting how hard people judge this person. There are infinitely amounts of cognitive dissonance we all live with every day. It’s not really to judge people for eating meat, it’s more to point our that from a logical standpoint this person actually did not do something much more unethical. Kinda like the thing with the female politician who shot her dog. Which I personally feel is insane and a terrible thing to do, but at the same time dogs are kinda like pigs, and we kill them all the time just because we prefer pig meat over lentils, beans, rice etc.

He should not have. But we kill animals all the time simply for eating meat, because we think that tastes a bit better. We don’t need to inflict suffering on animals for years, we can abstain from meat. How are we more moral? Just because we outsource the killing? I so not condone his actions, just point out that we are not better.

Of course he should not have done this. What I am saying is that eating meat when we clearly don’t need to is also unnecessary killing. So he killed an animal for no good reason, and we kinda do the same. We have more ethical foods available for us, but we like the taste of meat, and don’t care enough about their suffering. Except for those that abstain from meat.

It’s not about morals that the seagulls can understand. It is not about teaching something. He acted like a moron and completely disproportionately. However it’s not that much unethical than killing for meat, when we don’t need to eat meat.

I know what you mean, it’s disproportionate as hell. I am just saying that we aren’t much better morally than him. Unless we abstain from meat.

What he did was wrong, a bit because of the animal and a lot because of the spectators. It did not suffer, it was quick. It does however feel a bit like cognitive dissonance to strongly disapprove of his actions, while we systematically without any good reason eat animals and have them in small confined areas for optimal meat production per sqm. Vegans and vegetarians however, they can judge him all they want 😉 I am not one of them

Oh, I am very aware of it being like death. My point is that we were never alive at all. We have no consciousness because of determinism, we follow a path that cannot be changed. That’s why teleportation is not a problem from a deterministic atheist standpoint.

However I do fully acknowledge that I can not live like that. I live as if I have free will, because that is the easiest and most comfortable way to live. Beside nature / nurture arguments of course, I don’t dismiss those.

You should check out the movie Hardcore Henry 😉

Well the person being teleported would cease to exist. If life is deterministic then there is no consciousness, just a predetermined path. So my argument is basically that you don’t exist anyways, and by that extension teleportation is not a problem, because the copy is not alive either.

What is death? If everything is deterministic, then there is no consciousness. If there is no consciousness, then no death and a copy is pretty much exactly the same

Can you elaborate?

I think teleportation is a really interesting philosophical question. If life is deterministic and there is no soul, then there should be no problem with teleportation. From a deterministic atheist perspective it should not be a problem, I wouldn’t teleport myself though 😅

Not christian, but I would assume the cross is a reminder of Jesus dying for our sins.

I grew up with The Legend of Zelda. “Well excuuuuuuse me, princess”

People sometimes cheat, not okay, but it happens. Most likely the marriage wasn’t going so well, and he got some attention he wanted from someone else. Your mother is hurt and angry. But she does not have the right to deny your continued contact and bond with your dad.

There is no good reason mentioned in your post to end your relationship with your dad to end.

However, how the divorce is handled is more important in my opinion. If he in some major way makes sure she gets a bad unfair deal, then things are different. If he not only cheats, but also does not share in a fair manner, then he is really hurting your mother in a way that is harder to accept.

Most importantly, consenting adults. She is not even just barely an adult anymore. Not letting a 30 year old woman decide for herself is infantilizing.

Have fun and enjoy yourselves!

It depends as most things. I think ultimately a divorce should make sure things are fair. Unless there was attempts to hide funds or something like that, the wealth acquired throughout the marriage should be split 50/50. A cheating spouse or anything like that is no reason for an uneven split. There should not be any additional financial pressure to stay in a marriage, than losing the advantage of having twice the wealth. (Bigger house etc)

If one party made more money than the other, still 50/50. That’s what is actually fair. A socialist/communist approach. Everyone knows deep in their heart, what is fair. Capitalism and wage differences already sucks, don’t bring it into the marriage and the divorce, especially if kids are involved.

If there is kids involved, then It is also extremely petty to try to cheat your spouse out of a fair deal during divorce. It’s the parent of your children for fucks sake!

Cheating sucks, but is not a reason to retaliate financially.

Edit: Alimony / Spousal support is one of the many ways to make things continue to be fair afterwards. I am positive if children is involved

To not support USA financially

I am cishet white male, so I am probably ignorant. In my opinion you have no bigger obligation to be an activist than me.

However, I do believe all people have a certain obligation to participate unless the cost is too severe.

If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality.

• Desmond Tutu

I have a lower cost of participating due to my privileges, so I do. If you consider it probable that you will get significant consequences for activism, then it’s just judgement call only you and your family can make.