Yes. Though not as fast as a tire out in the sun. Tires in the sun will suffer UV damage as a primary form of degradation (obviously mechanical were too if in use). Spairs don’t see the sun so not a problem, but they do oxidize. Ozone will attack the rubber in the tire and cause it to go brittle. that is what causes all the tiny cracking you see on old tires. Generally it is recommended to replace any tire over ten years regardless of use. Interestingly this applies to brand new tires that have been sitting in a warehouse. It is worth learning how to read a tire date code so you can check the tire age. This helps with buying used cars, making sure a tire company didn’t sell you NOS tires, and just general safety.
For you I would just swap it out next time you buy tires. If it is a full sized spare then just save the best of the tires you are replacing as the spare. Save you buying a whole new tire that you will probably never use.
Every thread against people not strictly aligning with Leftist politics will be boiled down to: “There are three types of people: reasonable people who agree with me, crazy fascists on the other side, and lily-livered wimps who can’t pick a side (and are also secretly fascists who just won’t admit it)!”
Anyone with passable writing skills will be downvoted because creating cogent arguments against them is hard, and heaven forbid anyone see a smart argument that doesn’t align with your views perfectly.
In a similar vein, people will use the downvote as a “fuck you” button without commenting or adding any value to the conversation whatsoever.
(Edit: Yes, yes. You’re all hilarious. I may not have a button to hit, but fuck you too.)
Leftists famously don’t have uniform views and bitterly disagree on important topics. Some leftists aren’t reasonable in my opinion, with many non leftists having better reasoning behind their beliefs. Too many leftists are purity testing assholes, treating leftism with the same elitism that people on Lemmy treat using Linux. I hate elitism, even if you want to limit how big a community is. It’s just an unpleasant attitude.
You summarised my feelings far more eloquently than I managed here yesterday.
Downvote for you!!
But seriously, lemmy feels like more of an echo chamber than reddit ever did to me (which is saying a lot), maybe that’s because it’s an echo chamber for views i don’t agree with and reddit was more aligned to my thinking so I notice it more here, but dear god it’s getting harder and harder to stick around.
Don’t worry, bud, ive got your right wing right here, despite not being right wing, an american, a frequent voter, or anything…I just apparently am to people so delusional they think a canadian style rational socialist is a fascist.
Well, no, I don’t vote ndp because I’m anti union and anti gun control. I’m perhaps center right and want the national health care fixed, not privatized.
You’re missing my point bud. Everything is hot compared to something at 0 kelvin.
Everyone is left compared to the most right wing person, everyone is right compared to the most left wing person. It’s why people here often claim reddit is right leaning, despite it heavily favouring the left.
Being the most anything is rarely good, extremes prevent people seeing the other side way too often and very few subjects are 100% anything, most have nuance.
Just making a joke about why someone might accuse you of being a fascist.
Re: the silent downvoting: IMHO, it’s childish and worse than toadying as it’s both inherently cowardly and lacks any real effort at all. If I thought it would constructively improve the platform, I’d suggest a daily rationing of them, but what’s the point?
edit: D’awww, the chickenshits took the time to click. That’s adorable.
Upvote/DownVote/Likes/Thumbs Up/Etc etc are all bullshit and have ruined online discourse by, for the majority of online interactions, gamifying and distilling it into whatever reaction the poster… on some subconscious if not conscious level, whatever will get them the most positive praise and trigger that dopamine dump in the brain.
And thats when its not just dogpiling people who are saying things that are true, but you just dont want to hear.
internet would be better if this shit never existed.
That’s a tough one, the dopamine hit is real and encourages engagement, which drives up the active userbase and makes for more opportunity for discussion.
They get abused too but a forum with none of it won’t grow in nearly the same way as one that makes use of it. People like to earn something (karma, upvotes, whatever) even if it has no tangible value.
Honestly, reddit kinda nailed it but then made it very hard to keep supporting them when they took a steaming shit on the mods and massively overpriced the api to ensure they had more control of the userbase.
Overall I don’t think they’re hurting too badly from it though and I’m sure the extra ad revenue they get from ensuring everyone uses their app helps to dry their tears. Probably a smart business decision (at least in the short to medium term), depressing as that might be.
It really is the embodiment of that old joke about people never wanting to hear other people’s opinions, and only wanting to hear their own opinion parroted back to them by someone passably eloquent.
Sorry, kiddo, but that’s not “how the system is designed to work” (you’d know this if you actually read the community guidelines, rather than just wandering in and assuming it was Reddit 2.0), and instead is simply finding a similar fate that etymological morphology suffers at the hands of illiteracy.
We’ve got a linguistic prescriptivist here! Everyone come and look at the guy who’s sick of stuff shifting over time in response to community sentiment!
Well I get in, plug in my phone and put on my belt. That’s maybe 15 seconds. Then I turn the key and wait for the glow* plugs to warm up, so that’s another 5-10 seconds.
Not really what your criteria is being that I’m a pro life libertarian as far as ideals I align with most on what you’re looking for.
Even though I am religious, my argument against abortion is firstly a scientific one then on moral principal second. On the science side it’s a human from the moment of conception. On the moral side it’s that I believe all humans deserve human rights no matter at what stage of development there are. Just as soon as you make exceptions to kill for one type or subset of humankind you open the door to others. Usually this is done by labeling a certain group as not human to justify oppression of said group. Terms usually used to justify acts of violence against other humans are property, subhuman, animals, savages, clump of cells, parasite, etc. Usually for libertarians it boils down to having a code called the non-aggression principal which is essentially don’t fuck with other people. This is also why I’m anti capital punishment.
I hope that helps. Also, good luck at your family get togethers, lol. It feels like you’re looking for ammunition for debates.
I’m not seeing how this in anyway even really touches on this issue at hand. A paper on human development to show that “science says” we have a “human” at the moment of conception?
At the end of the day this is going to just be about what your definition of a “human” is rather than anything “science” has to say.
But at far as from conception goes, it has DNA distinct from both parents and starts developing until stopped. Even if not developed to whatever your standard is, it’s like a picture developed from film. The picture (or in this case, the human) is still there, it just needs to be developed.
I see justifying violence on certain humans as opening the door for society to justify violence on other humans. We look back on times when slavery or genocide was condoned and abhor that time and the humans that gave their approval to it. I truly believe that will be the way humanity will see society as it is now when medical technology advances enough to not need a human womb to develop a human to birth. That in and of itself begs the question, when a human is viable outside of the womb from no matter what stage of development, does that change how you view its rights from the earliest stages of its life?
Imagine the 'Trolley Problem" where there is a toddler on one track, and on the other track there is a cooler containing 100 in-vitro embryos. Which would you save, and why?
You already have my answer: try to derail tram in order to save both. If I fail, I fail. Knowing that I tried to save 101 people is all that matters because in the end the tram operator will be the one sued to make the family(ies) whole.
As far as I can tell you see abortion as an “exception” that allows killing of a specific type of human.
While I am not really concerned with humanness. But of the underlying phenomenon that make protecting humans something we should want to do.
If you think about why we want to protect humans and tie to to consciousness and ability to suffer. There’s no exception and we can use our knowledge of human fetus development to inform abortion policy to prevent abortions that would infringe on those conditions.
It wouldn’t because I have criteria, most specifically the ability to suffer, that underpins how I feel about abortion. This is independent of wombs or even DNA potentially.
I mean, I understand not wanting to allow violence on humans. But this still tied back to the definition of human. And, for me, if we take it back to ability to suffer, it makes a direct case for the way I feel about any entity’s (human or non human) rights
Personally I think the whole ‘life/humanity begins at conception’ thing is a smoke screen. Life began a long, long time ago, and the cell line you belong to became human deep in prehistory.
The actual question is “does the state have the right to use one person’s living body to support the life of another?” It applies to organ transplants as much as it applies to the unborn.
Not that you're asking for an argument, but I do want you to know why I, and many like me, find this whole life-from-conception argument totally ethically unpersuasive. And it's not the usual nonsense of "it's just cells" because, as you well know, that's an unimpressive and pointless debate. Whether a fetus is a human or not is fundamentally subjective. And so I'll grant that it is, because I have total confidence in my pro-choice position even then.
The issue with the pro-life position is not that it asserts that abortion is bad. Frankly, I don't give a crap if you or anyone else thinks it is bad. Again, that is subjective. A personal preference. The issue with the pro-life position is that it always seems to assert that abortion must be banned and even criminalized. That's what pro-life is. It doesn't mean "I think abortion is bad", it means "I think abortion should not be allowed."
My position isn't that abortion is good. Mine is that the pregnant person has a right to choose. I think the moral calculus on when and whether it is good or bad is FAR too complicated to form a rule, and so we must leave it up to the biggest stakeholders to figure that out privately.
I think a lot of things are bad, but having a preference against something is different than justifying use of the state's violence to prohibit it.
A Defense of Abortion by Judith Jarvis Thomson, PDF - 1971. Hardly new, and I doubt you've never seen it, but ultimately it is still the line of argument that I do not think has been convincingly rebutted. This essay is still probably the most sound and straightforward work of philosophy that shows that banning abortion is impermissible in an ethical society, and it presumes life from the moment of conception just as you do.
My extreme summary of the point it is making: at the end of the day, you have two competing human rights. You have the right to autonomy of your own body against another's right to life. Both are undeniably rights a person has -- and highly related ones, at that. When these rights are in tension, we need to make a choice as to which is supreme. And the consequences of giving life supremacy over autonomy are disastrous compared to the consequences of giving autonomy supremacy over life.
Rather than empower the state to take any and all actions necessary to protect life, we instead must impose a limit on the power of the state -- it may not violate someone's ability to make choices about their own body functions, even if to protect the life of another.
I'd prefer to be in a world that has no abortions at all. Just as I'd prefer to be in a world without contagious disease. One way to get rid of all contagious disease is to systematically euthanize every sick person at their first sniffle. Problem solved! Such is an abortion ban.
We get rid of disease by investing in research and healthcare and doing our best to use it maximize efficacy with fair triage, vaccination programs, etc.. We get rid of abortion by preventing unwanted pregnancies from the get and by creating a world so supportive and safe for pregnant people that they do not want to terminate it.
Appreciate the honest and (somewhat) applicable answer!
I also DO NOT appreciate the downvotes … we really need to get rid of those. Don’t agree, fine, move on or respond civilly. A downvote is a manifestly uncivil action sanctioned by the interface.
Otherwise … to respond to the abortion argument … where this falls down for me is the complete lack of any mention of the mother or woman in your reasoning.
Scientifically, this challenges the “humanness” of a foetus in the way it is tightly coupled and dependent on another human to live. Morally, it raises much of your reasoning in relation to not fucking with people once you consider what is effectively done to women by forcing them to carry any foetus to birth which is a massive, very active and obviously risky undertaking.
Whether these are convincing for you or others, the lack of any weight given for these considerations indicates that the act of birthing is presumed as a duty of all women. A presumption that IMO undermines the completeness of your scientific and moral arguments.
To take that a little further … should people be legally compelled to secure and save the lives of babies? As it is now, that’s not the case anywhere I know of. Causing harm would be criminal, obviously, but failing to save a baby or anyone else from harm is not.
In debating the legality of abortion you enter into similar territory. Only by presuming birth as a duty can you think otherwise.
While aborting a foetus is a positive act, there’s the complication that it’s purpose is to avoid the onus of pregnancy and birth, which can be easily seen as tantamount to “simply not doing the thing that would save the foetus’s like”, ie all the work of pregnancy and birth which is probably all too easily presumed by men (which I’m guessing you are) as a more passive and natural event than an act of effort, toil and cost.
The more fundamental issue is tying it to “humanness” at all. And I don’t think dependence on the mother really comes into play in terms of if it deserves protection. There’s really no reason you couldn’t have a concious parasite.
All of the highlights why it’s important to define what specific qualities we are looking for in determining the degree of rights an entity would have.
Your last paragraph is why I want nothing to do with killing humans just for convenience. Also look at my last comment with wantd. I posed a question about when a human is viable outside of the womb at any stage of development. Would it change how you view its rights?
Although I don’t agree with expanding government, I do agree with extending rights and protections to humans at all stages of development. I do consider that a different debate though mostly in line with who should pave roads, how police should work, and who should deliver mail (once again libertarian, not authoritarian Republican)
Also don’t worry about down votes. This topic is highly contentious and both sides generally see it the other side as a direct assault on their beliefs.
I know it’s contentious, but the downvotes don’t help anything.
To your first para: viability outside the womb doesn’t, I think, affect my initial argument. If it’s viable outside of the womb, then so be it. Actively harming it would be illegal, but being legally compelled to care for it would be problematic.
Viability would alter abortion laws though, I think. In that it would make sense at some point to prohibit the mother from electing to terminate rather than submit the foetus to whatever the extra-womb viability state is. What happens then would mostly put the foetus in the same position it is now in that the onus of providing the viability of its life wouldn’t be something others are compelled to do, unless of course it’s trivial and withholding is tantamount to actively killing.
On the issue of convenience, I think that’s a misrepresentation. The thrust of the argument is consistency with the rest of social norms where the “convenience” is the freedom for a whole gender to not undertake 9 months of drastic bodily transformation and work and the remaining parental duties. If the rest of society were so committed to life and prosperity as ensuring every foetus gets taken care of, then that’s a different conversation, in large part because the mothers would be taken care of too. But consigning a whole gender’s major life experiences and burdens to a matter of “convenience”, I think, marks the dissonance that a libertarian outlook encounters when it tries to compel or outlaw actions. It’s not just convenience (in principle at least), and that this onus needs to be considered trivial indicates IMO the biases against women involved treating the issue as legally black and white.
Nonetheless, I agree with your general reasoning about not facilitating the depreciation of life. I personally extend the same reasoning to animals in my arguments in favour of veganism.
Not original replier, but personally viably outside the womb changes the entire game. A strong major of my support for abortion is “I’m a man, I can’t possibly imagine getting pregnant and birthing another human”. So much of the onus of birth is the woman, a human that we also have to consider the feelings and health of. If viably was possible outside the womb, I could probably be argued into agreeing to ban abortion with some key exceptions because the world isn’t black and white.
However, I am curious on your thoughts on medical euthanasia.
Not OP but I think women are people, so yeah they should have basic bodily autonomy. Might not jive that well with the folk that view women as nothing more than property though.
I like how you call out some terms used to dehumanization. Fetus, baby, and child also fit into that bucket imo.
So ,to clarify, you want the government to restrict and punish abortion? I thought libertarians were for less government.
Why should the government have a monopoly on violence and force in this case? Instead shouldn’t the enforcement of moral law like the NAP be up to their peers or free market hired private contractors?
Some libertarians are minarchist meaning as little government as possible, some are anarcho-capitalists. Pro-life minarchists would be fine having punishment of abortion be treated like any other killing of a human. Anarcho-capitalists would rather not have government have a monopoly on violence.
If the NAP could be easily dismissed by just reclassifying who is and isn’t a human, then yes some form of law setting clarifying what a human is would be necessary. You bring up THE most interesting debate though in libertarian circles IMHO. Tom Woods did an interview with Gerard Casey about this topic. I highly recommend listening to the interview and giving Casey’s book a read.
I won’t mention the rest of the text because I’m not interested enough on the discussion to do so. I’ll focus on a single thing.
On the science side it’s a human from the moment of conception.
What should be considered a human being or not is prescriptive in nature, because it involves ethics. Science - i.e. the scientific method - does not give a shit to prescriptive matters; science is descriptive, it’s worried about what happens/doesn’t happen. For science it doesn’t really matter if you call it a human, a tissue, a wug or a colourless green thing sleeping furiously, as long as you’re unambiguously and accurately describing the phenomenon being studied.
As such, no, science itself doesn’t really tell you “when it becomes a human being”.
The only thing that it “proves” is that the author (not “science”) is referring to foetuses (from nine weeks after conception [not zero] to 16 weeks) as “children”. And it certainly does not back up your claim that [ipsis litteris] “On the science side it’s a human from the moment of conception.”
And no, “The growth and development are positively influenced by factors, like parental health and genetic composition, even before conception.” does not prove it either, given that the author is solely mentioning conception as a time of reference.
Sorry to be blunt but the way that you referred to science sounds a lot like “I’m ignorant on science but I want to leech off its prestige for the sake of my argument”. If you don’t want to do this, here’s a better approach:
Show how certain actions generate certain outcomes. Science will help you with this.
Explicit the moral and ethical premises that you are using, to judge said outcomes as good/bad. Science will not help you with this.
It’s also a nice way to avoid a fallacy/stupidity called appeal to nature (TL;DR: “[event/thing] is natural, so it’s good lol lmao”), that often plagues discussions about moral matters like abortion.
I think the responses from the conservatives in this thread have demonstrated what I’d expected, and hopefully what OP was looking for: abandonment of Christian dogma does not always result in abandonment of dogmatic values.
People who are happy to declare that the definition of something like science is anything other than what the vast majority of those accredited in scientific fields consider it to be are just as dishonest as hard-line Christians, and will vote against their own interests just as readily.
Have you looked into possible causes for your fatigue, exhaustion, and insomnia? It could be worth some investigation (e.g., blood work, sleep study, ADHD assessment).
Best thing my daddy taught me; no matter how confident you are, you could always be wrong. Brains are just unreliable sometimes. Sky is blue? Could be wrong. You’re N years old? Probably… but you could be wrong.
Accepting this allows one to improve. Best we can do is recognize this, and try our best to minimize how often we’re wrong.
This has allowed me to withhold confidence in many situations. Not in deference, but in thoughtful acceptance that I truly might be wrong.
That really warms my heart to hear. I’m trying to be one of the good dads.
Just today my 9 year old and I had a conversation about how I’m always the first to step up and admit when I make a mistake, and communicate what I did or will do to fix it, where I have colleagues who will try to hide their mistakes and front like they never ever make them. Going so far as lying to clients, bosses, and coworkers all the way.
The problem with this is the quiet nihilism baked into it, which is the same reason so many people believe that widely supported science could be wrong.
In the absolute sense, it is true. Though things like “the sky is blue” is more about linguistics, but for a layperson it’s kind of inconsequential either way. While there is a small possibility that scientific consensus could be wrong, there is orders of magnitude bigger chance that unwarranted skepticism is dangerous. Reality does exist, regardless of how much epistemology you choose to wave away.
I don’t think so, and he and I have discussed this in epistemological terms several times over the years. “Sky is blue” example was probably bad as would have been “earth is round” etc. The point isn’t that anything can be wrong, though strictly speaking, I guess it can. What we mean is precisely that our minds have the ability to mislead us and powerfully so. But part of the drive to minimize that is to understand the value of consensus in both scientific communities and wider communities.
To have the best ratio of things about which were correct vs incorrect, being confident in things like the outcome of refereed science is helpful.
Not in this field anymore, but used to be a landscaper for a handful of years.
A lot of people think that landscaping is just grass cutting, but it’s called that because you are literally scaping the land, and sometimes beyond that.
Hell, roof work, foundation laying, pressure washing, among other things, have been a part of my duties during my time in that field.
I’m an evangelist’s kid. I grew up surrounded by religion. When I got to my 30s I started reevaluating matters of faith. Now in my 60s I consider that journey complete. On “good” days I’m agnostic, on “bad” days an atheist.
I know many awesome people of faith. I know many hideous people of faith. I know many awesome nonbelievers, I know meant hideous nonbelievers.
Be a decent human being and very few people will care what you believe.
Can I ask, in the friendliest way possible and purely for my curiosity so I really don’t expect an answer, how you balance “higher power” with “doesn’t use it”? The way you’ve described it could be interrupted as anything from an otherwise traditional Christian who doesn’t believe in directly answered prayers, to believing that this is some sort of simulation we will wake up from.
One thing I often think about coming from a Christian upbringing is the idea that God knows everything that will ever happen to you, every choice you’ll make, when you’ll die, etc. To me, that signifies determinism and total lack of free will. That just doesn’t sit well with me.
Agnostic and atheist aren’t mutually exclusive things. 99.9% of atheists are agnostic about there being a god because it’s unprovable. Same way you’re likely agnostic about Russell’s teapot en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot
This, but primarily when someone is confounded by the idea that im not into sports. Ive had this happen with a few things, but sports are one of the weireder ones. I mean to the point of them going, nah you like sports, then continuing ro go on a rant about sone game.like i know im into a lot of stuff others arent, but if they sont want to talk about it, thats perfectly fine
LOL, when I moved to the South (American) people were stunned that I knew nothing about the SEC (regional college football conference) and didn’t have a favorite.
It was a big deal, for both men and women, around the office. Now that I’m at a software dev, people rarely comment, and only on their local team.
Yup, I figured I would not be the first to say this.
I’ve gotten to the point that I don’t mind a hearing a quick overview of whatever the latest game is, but I really really don’t want to hear a half hour analysis of which player on what team is going to lead them to victory and why coach x is far better than coach y.
Back when me and my wife started dating, it was a long distance relationship and we agreed that it’s OK if we see other people too. Neither of us did, but I feel like “expanding relationship” should only happen when your primary deal is in healthy state and not to try fix issues in it by dating someone else.
Yeah the way I like to describe that is that nonmonogamy can solve relationship problems but only the ones caused by needing nonmonogamy. Alternatively learning poly philosophies has done wonders for some monogamous people I know. They may not get compersion from a partner seeing someone else, but they do have the words to recognize and appreciate the happiness of being a loved one’s joy. And they communicate great too.
I sometimes think back to when Loss was first posted. I was a teenager hanging out on Shacknews and Somethingawful. The memes started pouring out, people couldn’t stop mocking it. Seemed kinda cruel to me, obviously the author was trying to share something personal and painful with his audience. But the internet was a cruel place. People just didn’t give a fuck.
I remember thinking it’ll blow over before too long. Boy howdy did I underestimate the internet.
I agree the internet is a cruel place but it’s also an extremely human response to react to tragedy with comedy. If the comic didn’t strike a chord with people in a very real way, I’m not sure people would still be finding ways to laugh at it. I mean, look at how many people cope with/joke about depression through memes. I don’t think it’s meant to be cruel, it’s just a natural human reaction to hardship and the reason it’s still around is because people do, in fact, give a very sad fuck.
To be honest i discovered this meme no so long ago, but i feel like the message and resilience of it is kind of universal. Everyone understand whats’s its essence, everyone can relate. I never though i would be the one to bring it up anywhere, but here i am, posting it, years after the original. And its still relevant!
I’ve been at places where the corporate policies were just buzzword doublespeak and they are a waste of time. Everyone knows it’s bullshit.
I’ve also been at exactly one place where the leadership team gave serious thought to what their goals were for the organization. Then they wrote down a set of goals that were
simple
coherent
actionable And that actually made it easier to do our jobs. When we had to make a decision, we could actually refer to these principles and use them.
It was crazy helpful!
…And then they hired a fuckton of Ex-Amazon managers into high-level roles and they promptly drove away all the best people and replaced the helpful principles with Amazon’s work-or-die philosophy. So I bailed. 😭
Is this a common thing? I’ve also noticed this with ex Amazon managers if encountered in the workplace. Horribly incompetent, generally unpleasant to work with, but some how get themselves to get hired.
The name of “Amazon” carries cachet. It sounds like impressive experience.
The thing is, Amazon famously treats its employees like shit - even the highly paid ones. There’s a sorta Stockholm Syndrome that develops, where you convince yourself that this misery is the cost of “doing great things” or you decide to bail while you can and go someplace that doesn’t suck.
Managers who spend any amount of time at Amazon tend to be the former. They end up with this mindset that if your team isn’t miserable, you just aren’t working hard enough and that having “tough” conversations means that you berate people until they break.
So beware Ex-Amazon managers. They’re not all bad, but a sudden influx is not a good sign.
(In fairness - One of the best managers I ever had was at Amazon. If he left that place, I’d be thrilled to work with him again. Just. Not there.
The hands-down worst manager I ever had was at Amazon as well.)
Its super awkward when youre too busy unlatching your ground harness to connect your toilet harness that you forget to lock the door, and some cobber walks in and sees you hanging there with your dick and balls out, pooping into the void of space.
Wait till you see Kansas City airport they have lights outside showing you how many occupied, and lights inside showing you red or green for what’s empty full
asklemmy
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.