Dude was a nuclear physicist, so maybe he was on to something.
Let’s not go attributing success in one area as relevant to being smart in another, unrelated area, even when they’re right. I prefer the other guy who worked in the industry agreeing rather than a nuclear physicist. Unless nuclear physicists typically get their degree by researching the insurance industry and their quality in relationship to advertisement budgets.
You’ve got some good points there, but it feels a little naive of nuance in parts.
Like, if these are natural rights, presumably this still counted before humans banded together to form the first societies. Before, even, we were small roving migratory groups that only just managed to climb out of the trees. humans, as they were, are basically animals at that point, right? I mean, we’re still animals, but you know what I mean. So we still have those rights? What makes us different than the other animals (or even other ape descendants) that we see as food? As a species, we were evolved to eat meat, which requires killing something else that presumably has these same rights that we have to violate to enforce our own right to life. Or did natural rights come later, when we were “better” and “more advanced” than the animals we hunted? Does that mean we get these rights when we reach a certain point in self-awareness?
It’s tough to argue with the base arguments you present, and I don’t disagree with them… but they can be argued against. Like your slavery argument. It goes against these natural rights that we have always had, yet we started taking our first steps toward stopping it, like, 600 years ago? Slavery predates writing. As far as we know, mankind was enslaving other people as far as we can track, and definitely hundreds, if not thousands of years before. So were they not aware of these natural rights or just didn’t care?
It sounds like you’re saying these are natural rights that everyone has because it feels right to you dues to the society you grew up in that appreciated these rights. They have to come from somewhere to be natural but only really count for some living things and not others.
Personally, I don’t believe in natural rights. We’re animals that grew opposable thumbs and learned to make tools. Human rights come about only because we live together in societies. In a way that sounds contradictory, we formed groups and gained rights among those other humans, and in the same instant traded some of those away for that group to function. Rights have to come from somewhere. Without groups agreeing on what those rights are, then the decider of rights is whoever is strongest. Might makes right started to decline only because we got into groups large enough to defend against outside forces, and even then it was only within the group in which those rights existed. Rights themselves are part of the social contract we all participate in when we exist in society and universal human rights is a relatively recent advancement, and we definitely haven’t come to a consensus as to what they all definitely are. But if society breaks down, those rights definitely disappear overnight. But I’ve always been the kind of person who needs reasons to believe a thing and have sound reasons to believe it.
I’m with you on right to life, and bodily autonomy are things that all humans should have. I think we just differ in their origin and universality.
So who decides what rights are natural ones and which ones need a government to enforce? And what are the natural rights? Not just that you believe it to be so, but why? And what you use to make that decision.
Forgive me, but I’ve been doing a lot of research lately on natural rights and their protections, limits, and origins. I’ve been reading a lot of philosophy on it and it’s extremely interesting. I’m genuinely curious how people come to these conclusions and I love hearing different viewpoints.
So where do these rights come from, if not the laws? I wonder if you may be taking free speech as a right as a given because of the time you grew up in. You speak of it as an absolute, but where does that belief come from? You say “rights” as if they’re something enshrined in our souls by a god, but like, how do you know that? Where does this information come from?
This is purely a philosophical question. I’m on the free speech wagon here. But realistically, Who gets to decide what’s actually an inalienable right that everyone has vs. rights that are encoded in laws?
You put it on a hook? The shower rod is pretty good for me when I hang it to dry. Move the curtain out of the way and spread it out and it gets pretty good airing out. When I lived in places without a shower rod or a shared bathroom I’d hang it on a door.
But if it can survive on it’s own, it’s not aborted. Were it legal to remove the fetus at that point, then it’s a delivery. It can survive on it’s own without being attached to the another’s body, so they would deliver it early.
That might be due to our heavy government surveillance system. Remember, it wasn’t that long ago that a militia was arrested before they could carry out their plan to kidnap the governor of Michigan. The year before that a Coast Guard lieutenant was arrested before he could kill journalists and Democrat politicians. There was that nutjob who took a hammer to Pelosi’s husband’s head (Didn’t even catch that one in time!) There’s tons of attempts to assassinate presidents. Kinda feels pretty par for the course.
But the original point, I think, was that it’s kinda weird for someone to say it’s not surprising for it to happen in Mexico, as if it’s some third world country run like New York in Escape from New York while pretending it doesn’t happen in the US frequently. The US is just a bigger police state so they catch most of them before anyone dies. The FBI has plants in militias and groups like them all over the country specifically to catch this kind of thing. Most governments just can’t afford that kind of manpower. The US is not special or really that much safer, and comments normalizing this kind of thing for Mexico is why anyone even made that argument. It’s definitely shitty, and probably racist to think that it’s reasonable, when it’s in Mexico, people say "Eh it happens.”
Judging by the comments here, it seems it may vary between schools. Mine has a system where you “apply” for graduation. They just go over your records to make sure you’ve earned all the correct credits and enough of them. Once they’ve verified it they let you know they have and that you now have the degree. I’d probably check with your advisor if you have one, or if not contact the school and ask if there are any steps you need to take once your required classes have been completed.
Then why are we taking their opinion over our own?
Typically, when people cite something like that, they defer to an expert in that field. In this case, maybe an anthropologist? There’s nothing in the training to be a physicist that prepares them to understand the early stages of civilizations forming, let alone is longevity.
I mean, the thumbs help hold stuff, sure, but it’s our large pre-frontal cortex that really comes in clutch. That and our penchant for violence. There’s evidence to show that the Neanderthals were possibly more advanced than us before they “died out,” but also less violent and selfish. It’s those traits that led us to kill them or cut off their access to resources while we took them all.
We are still animals. Any biologist will tell you that, but that’s not a negative thing, it’s just a facts. It’s like saying we’re mammals. It really comes down to how you define “better.” and “successful.” Obviously, we are making those determinations from our point of view, so we tend to define them with the things only we do. But if we’re defining successful by technological advancement or the ability to do advanced math, or even versatility in abilities, we’re at least top 3. But those orangutans are pretty nifty with their use of twigs sometimes, so don’t count them out.
remained mindful of the naivety of all people, including themselves,… to prevent allowing hubris to allow poor decisions.
Not to spoil a 60 year old book, but didn’t they have a plan to genetically engineer a literal savior to mankind with hundreds of years of selective breeding? A little like the pot telling the kettle it’s too sure of itself.
Freedom is good. Radicals are cool. so…
What do you think the reasons are?
The stated purpose of the Cuban Democracy Act of 1992 is to maintain sanctions on Cuba as long as the Cuban government refuses to move toward “democratization and greater respect for human rights.” cite
If that was actually true, half the countries the US trades with should be embargoed. Saudi Arabia, a monarchy?
U.S. goods and services trade with Saudi Arabia totaled an estimated $46.6 billion in 2022. Exports were $21.6 billion; imports were $24.9 billion. The U.S. goods and services trade deficit with Saudi Arabia was $3.3 billion in 2022. cite
Let’s not lie to ourselves, it’s always been about the Communism Boogie man. But if you want to cultivate capitalism in a country, cutting off the ability for free trade outside that country isn’t the way to do it. America’s influence stops other countries from trading there as well so they have no option but to rely on a government focused economic system as they’re the only ones with the ability to really participate in any market elsewhere. I agree that tankies can go fuck themselves, but you’re letting 60 year old propaganda get to you. The rest of the world has no problem with Cuba and it’s getting weirder and weirder that the US continues these unreasonable sanctions like a middle school bully holding a grudge well into middle-age. I can only assume you’re so sure because it’s just always been that way and you assume it’s for a good reason.
So, I find myself doing something similar at smaller meetings at work as well, when it’s just my immediate team. But I wonder if there’s some context that may make your situation different. On our team, I’ve gained a reputation for being a data goblin and supplying that data to many departments that help them focus and make decisions on changes or solving problems. With that, I’ve been able to cultivate a reputation for being very knowledgeable about the business being able to see past the fluff and cutting straight to the real issue that needs to be solved, like you talk about for yourself, so when I speak about these things, I’m taken seriously. And probably more importantly, I also always offer a potential solution, even if it’s not implemented (No one likes the guy who just brings problems but never solutions). Most importantly though, I only do this in meetings with my immediate small team. When other departments come in, they have their own ways of communication and I don’t make assumptions that my way is acceptable for them.
In summary, some things to take into account:
None of this may apply to you, and maybe you’re actually surrounded by people that genuinely need you to help get the conversation focused. But I’ve seen people (and myself) make these missteps. And I agree with the poster who mentioned ADHD. I have it and have been over-talking people my whole life until it was pointed out to me and I got better about checking myself, while still contributing. You have to learn to read a room and know instinctively when and how your contributions are welcome.
But you need to make it clear in how you phrase things that you “highly value other people’s input.” I have phrases I use over and over that seem to help.
“I really like what Jane was saying there about the Bobbles. It got me thinking about how the doo-dad’s flipperdoodle can cause this issue. I wonder if there’s a way we can head this off? Maybe cut out the whats-it protocol? Tom, you’ve been looking at the flipperdoodle process lately, do you think that’s a possibility or if there’s something else we could do to streamline it?”
But again, this really only works if you’re in a group where that’s how equals talk to each other like that. If there’s a superior in the meeting who knows about the Bobble department, that’s probably their responsibility. You’ve got to make it sound like you’re working with the team to solve it, not sitting above them and keeping them on-track like you know better. Try listening to how other’s phrase things and try to imitate it, tone as well, not just saying the words. I did not come up working in offices so I’ve had to adapt to the environment, and that’s what I did.
But also, who cares that it’s less hard? I’m not using it for a drill bit, it’s a cosmetic piece. Literally it’s only function is visual. And moissanite is superior. All the visual markers that are used for beauty in a diamond it surpasses. And some quick googling I did to confirm that also showed me that diamond is only barely harder (“With a hardness of 9.25, moissanite is the second-hardest material used a gemstone.” a diamond is a 10.) and it turns out, less likely to break in some cases. “Moissanite doesn’t have a cleavage plane, while diamond does. (This is an internal plane along which a diamond crystal can easily split)” So if you hit a diamond in the wrong spot, it can still crack. Moissanite does not have a weak spot.
“I consider this harassment inappropriate for a workplace. I’d rather not get HR involved.”
Key words from the employee manual or even better, HR training. No emotion, just stating facts. Don’t trust HR, but management knows that more than anyone. They use it as a bludgeon against employees all the time, they know it could be turned against them just as easily.
Several years ago, when I was still going into the office, I made a similar decision. I tossed all my old socks and bought like, 12 pairs of argyle socks in a variety of brighter colors and deliberately wore different colors every day. They’re the same brand so they all wear the same, just sometimes bright green and orange(or whatever) on each foot. I got a few questions at first, though never negative. People thought they were being helpful letting me know my socks didn’t match, but when I told them it was intentional they thought it was a great idea. Now it’s expected for me to have mismatched socks and no one notices. Of course, being WFH now, I almost never wear socks anymore. But on the occasion someone notices these days, they don’t really care.
The main thing people get from milk is, depending on the country, vitamin D, which isn’t naturally occurring there and is best obtained by just getting some sun, and the fat, which most people cut out of it. Milk’s calcium absorption is, at best, around 30% and not a great source of calcium. You get better calcium intake from leafy greens and nuts (~50% absorption). Also, there has not been a definitive link between additional bone density from calcium and brittle bones. Japan and India are still mostly lactose intolerant and have fewer hip fractures than America, which has one of the highest milk intakes in the world. It’s more likely manual labor and sunlight is better for bone health.
The idea that milk is healthy is part of misunderstandings that have been taken as fact for decades, but it’s not really. It’s not junk food… until you start adding even more sugar to an already surprisingly sugary drink.
Quickly found source concerning meta analysis and milk’s health benefits
Why do people always do that? I agree it would be a good move, but because smoking is unhealthy and addictive and it’s existence in our society makes it collectively worse. But here I keep seeing people just say they’re glad because they think cigarettes are icky.
Where’s your data that, “all else being equal, office-based work IS better”? I mean, I don’t have data that says otherwise, but I know the company I work for as well as higher-ups at other companies I’ve talked to noticed right out the gate that productivity went up when they went work from home. The same work needs to be done, and it gets done. If it doesn’t, fire them. I have trouble seeing how the location the worker is in matters, all things being equal.