DrObvious's profile page

Profile picture

DrObvious (user #6,593) MaleGold MedalGold TrophySuper StarDiamondBronze Crown

Joined on August 20th, 2012 (2,560 days ago)

Last login was over 3 months ago

Votes: 25,451

Questions: 76 view

Comments: 1,625

Profile views: 439

Hello ladies and gentlemen.

DrObvious has submitted the following questions: voting view

Would you rather be a Preference Utilitarian or Classical (Hedonist) Utilitarian 4 years ago 166 votes 4 comments 0 likes
Would you rather be an... Underwater welder (pay is good but the work is hard and can be very dangerous) or Investment banker (good salary but the job has very long hours and it's often boring) 4 years ago 129 votes 6 comments 0 likes
Would you rather have a job that... Pays about $400,000 a year with a 75 hour work week and a lot of stress? or Pays about $70,000 per year but is relatively enjoyable, stress free, and only has a 40 hour work week? 4 years ago 146 votes 12 comments 0 likes
Should foods containing DNA (but not necessarily produced with genetic engineering) be labeled? Yes or No 4 years ago 161 votes 19 comments 0 likes
You're on a boat in the middle of a lake with two of your children, a one year old and a five year old. The boat capsizes and you can only save one of your children from drowning. Which one do you save? One year old or Five year old 4 years ago 405 votes 25 comments 0 likes
Suppose you're on a boat in the middle of a lake with two of your adult children, a 20 year old and a 40 year old. The boat capsizes and you are forced to save one of your children, but you can only save one. Neither of your children can swim. Who do you save? 20 year old or 40 year old 4 years ago 158 votes 46 comments 0 likes
Would you rather be... A ventilator-dependent quadriplegic? or Mentally retarded? 4 years ago 183 votes 6 comments 0 likes
Should people be allowed to sell their organs? Yes or No 4 years ago 197 votes 13 comments 0 likes
Should organ donation be mandatory? Yes or No 4 years ago 159 votes 18 comments 0 likes
Would you rather... Check my privilege? or Check your privilege? 4 years ago 121 votes 46 comments 0 likes
Which group is more annoying? Young earth creationists or Anti-vaxxers 4 years ago 103 votes 3 comments 0 likes
Would you rather drink... 8 ounces of bleach? or 1 ounce of pure dihydrogen monoxide? 4 years ago 124 votes 35 comments 0 likes
Should we give greater weight to the interests of members of the species Homo sapien? Yes or No 4 years ago 130 votes 16 comments 2 likes
Is homosexual behavior immoral? Yes (please provide evidence) or No 4 years ago 437 votes 57 comments 1 like
Is gravity a... Myth or Reality 4 years ago 215 votes 16 comments 0 likes
Should governments pay ransom for hostages taken by terrorists? Yes, it is a government's duty to protect its citizens. or No, paying ransoms supports terrorist organizations and provides incentives for more kidnappings. 4 years ago 184 votes 5 comments 0 likes
Would you rather smoke Marijuana? or Tobacco? 4 years ago 263 votes 25 comments 0 likes
Would you rather Earn $70,000 per year and keep it all? or Earn $100,000 per year and give $70,000 of it to charity? 4 years ago 515 votes 16 comments 0 likes
Suppose you've parked your car on some railroad tracks. You notice a train coming that is about to destroy your car. You also notice that there is a lever that will change the track so that your car will be untouched, but the train will kill an oblivious child. Would you? Pull the lever and kill the child or Not pull the lever, destroying your car 4 years ago 473 votes 24 comments 0 likes
Should performance enhancing drugs be permitted in competitive sports? Yes or No 5 years ago 393 votes 14 comments 0 likes
Who was worse? Adolf Hitler or Pol Pot 6 years ago 277 votes 13 comments 0 likes
Would you rather bestiality be Legal or Illegal 6 years ago 409 votes 33 comments 0 likes
Do you agree with this quote? Yes or Nah it's stupid 6 years ago 153 votes 5 comments 0 likes
Would you rather only be able to speak like a...? Stereotypical black American or Stereotypical redneck 6 years ago 603 votes 17 comments 0 likes
Is the more important purpose of higher education to...? Get a good job or Become well educated 6 years ago 288 votes 6 comments 0 likes
Would you rather Traditional books or eBooks 6 years ago 242 votes 4 comments 0 likes
Should it be legal for cousins to have sexual relations? Yes or No 6 years ago 2,258 votes 70 comments 1 like
Are racist/sexist/homophobic/whatever jokes funny? Yes they can be, and they shouldn't offend anyone because they're just jokes. or No they're offensive and unfunny. 6 years ago 846 votes 28 comments 0 likes
Which country did more to help the allies during WWII? The Soviet Union or United States 6 years ago 334 votes 32 comments 0 likes
If given the opportunity, would you have sex with your best friend of the gender you're attracted to? Yes or No 6 years ago 251 votes 7 comments 0 likes
Would you rather Canada and Mexico join the USA or The European Union unites to form the United States of Europe 6 years ago 353 votes 21 comments 0 likes
Who would win? USA or The rest of the world 6 years ago 249 votes 13 comments 0 likes
Would you rather Swear at the next 10 strangers you see or Randomly tell a yo mama joke to the next 20 strangers you see 6 years ago 192 votes 2 comments 0 likes
About 50% of modern day Russians have a generally positive view of Stalin. Are you surprised? Yes or No 6 years ago 476 votes 16 comments 0 likes
Should the words "In God we trust" be on US currency? Yes or No 6 years ago 263 votes 26 comments 0 likes
Would you rather live in The Soviet Union under Stalin or Nazi Germany under Hitler 6 years ago 474 votes 11 comments 0 likes
Has Obama been doing a good job his second term? Yes or No 6 years ago 344 votes 15 comments 0 likes
Would you rather be a Spartan hoplite or Roman legionnaire 6 years ago 333 votes 25 comments 0 likes
Which empire was greater? The Spanish Empire or The Ottoman Empire 6 years ago 1,068 votes 9 comments 0 likes
Who would you rather have as leader of your country? Richard Dawkins or Pope Benedict XVI 6 years ago 261 votes 9 comments 0 likes
Are you superstitious? Yes or No 6 years ago 248 votes 4 comments 0 likes
Is the United States closer to a Democracy or Aristocracy/Oligarchy 6 years ago 237 votes 2 comments 0 likes
Would you rather be Timid or Reckless 6 years ago 224 votes 9 comments 0 likes
Do you fear death? Yes or No 6 years ago 2,119 votes 41 comments 0 likes
Is the life of a human objectively more valuable than the life of other species? Yes or No 6 years ago 388 votes 39 comments 0 likes
Would you rather be a Christian or Buddhist 6 years ago 362 votes 29 comments 0 likes
Would you rather Science or Philosophy 6 years ago 532 votes 11 comments 0 likes
Which type of sex education should be taught in public schools? Abstinence-only or Safe sex 6 years ago 354 votes 10 comments 0 likes
If you were a slave would you rather Rebel against your masters or Live with it 6 years ago 409 votes 11 comments 0 likes
Do you support gun control? Yes, fewer guns means fewer gun related accidents and less gun related crime. or No, the ability to bear arms is our right and guns protect us in addition to being a crime deterrent. 6 years ago 473 votes 16 comments 0 likes
Would you rather Be a young Earth creationist or Be a member of the Flat Earth Society 6 years ago 202 votes 5 comments 0 likes
Has religion done more good or bad for the world, overall? Good or Bad 6 years ago 624 votes 17 comments 0 likes
Would you rather There be no laws or Have Hammurabi's code as universal law. 6 years ago 282 votes 8 comments 0 likes
Which empire was greater? The Roman Empire or The Mongol Empire 6 years ago 403 votes 13 comments 0 likes
Who would you rather have as leader of your country? David Duke or Sarah Palin 6 years ago 181 votes 7 comments 0 likes
Do you think aliens have ever visited Earth during human history? Yes or No 6 years ago 541 votes 13 comments 0 likes
Is mathematics An Invention or A Discovery 6 years ago 317 votes 12 comments 0 likes
Would you rather live in a Monarchy/Dictatorship or Direct Democracy 6 years ago 582 votes 9 comments 0 likes
Does it annoy you when Christians cherry pick from the Bible? Yes, it's stupid. or No, it makes sense. 6 years ago 410 votes 15 comments 0 likes
Would you rather live in a Direct Democracy or Representative Democracy 6 years ago 258 votes 5 comments 0 likes
Was Franklin Roosevelt a good US president? Yes or No 6 years ago 268 votes 12 comments 0 likes
Should very wealthy people (millionaires and billionaires) pay significantly more in taxes than the middle class? Yes or No 6 years ago 483 votes 17 comments 2 likes
Do you believe in hell, or some other form of eternal punishment after death? Yes or No 6 years ago 651 votes 17 comments 0 likes
Would you rather Be forced to read Fifty Shades of Grey or Be forced to spend 36 hours in an empty room with no entertainment and only simple bread and water 6 years ago 655 votes 9 comments 0 likes
Who was the greater general of the Second Punic War? Scipio Africanus or Hannibal Barca 6 years ago 436 votes 7 comments 0 likes
Would you rather be able to read Classical Greek or Classical Latin 6 years ago 444 votes 2 comments 0 likes
Would you rather Compete in the Hunger Games or Compete in the Minecraft Hunger Games 6 years ago 249 votes 15 comments 0 likes
Would you rather watch Fox News or MSNBC 6 years ago 686 votes 20 comments 0 likes
Who was the greater general of the American Civil War? Robert E. Lee or Ulysses S. Grant 6 years ago 362 votes 7 comments 0 likes
Would you rather Utilitarianism or The Categorical Imperative 6 years ago 151 votes 5 comments 0 likes
Have you read the Qur'an, or at the very least a significant portion of it? Yes, I have or No, I have not 6 years ago 336 votes 13 comments 0 likes
Have you read the bible, or at the very least a signifcant portion of it? Yes, I have or No, I have not 6 years ago 300 votes 20 comments 0 likes
Is it possible to prove the existence of God with logic? Yes or No 6 years ago 398 votes 17 comments 0 likes
Do chemtrails exist? Yes or Nope 6 years ago 270 votes 17 comments 0 likes
Would you rather Wikipedia? or Conservapedia? 6 years ago 634 votes 11 comments 0 likes
Would you rather Become incredibly rich by exploiting others or Be poor, but help others 7 years ago 298 votes 2 comments 0 likes

DrObvious has posted the following comments:

That makes absolutely no sense. 3 years ago +2
More than 3, but I wouldn't say a lot. 3 years ago  
eres un bobo 3 years ago  
I don't like the Spanish lisp or the fact that they use a whole different verb conjugation. 3 years ago +1
"I'm not paying for that f---cking wall" - Vicente Fox, former Mexican president. 3 years ago  
I don't understand why someone would want a higher chance of death. 3 years ago  
Well, billions are killed each year in agriculture and most of the world's population eats meat so clearly not everyone agrees. 3 years ago  
Unless your favorite food is something super rare and exotic you'd be able to easily afford a lifetime supply with 5 million. 3 years ago +2
I'm surprised more guys have voted yes so far. 3 years ago  
Nigerian prince that needs your money. Will pay you back times 3. 3 years ago  
Nebuchadnezzar 3 years ago  
Hilary Clinton and Bernie Sanders have legitimate policy proposals that attempt to solve the problems facing America. Trump is a loudmouth with no political experience and no serious policy proposals. 3 years ago  
Like who? 3 years ago  
Un-block it. 3 years ago  
Probably my favorite character. 3 years ago +1
Trump isn't remotely qualified to be president. 3 years ago +4
Not inherently, but a lot of it is unethically sourced in countries in which weed is illegal. 3 years ago +1
Much richer on a per capita basis. 3 years ago  
Definitely 3 years ago  
I don't have a spouse, nor do most people on this site. 3 years ago +1
If I were a person chosen at random: A If I could choose my social status: B. 3 years ago +1
No he's clearly the real Donald. 3 years ago  
I don't think he believes half the things he says. 3 years ago +2
Pistachios have a kind of weird taste to me. 3 years ago  
Duh... you'd get to have sex with a hot teacher and probably get a better grade in the class. 3 years ago  
The dialogue is interesting, and there is a fair amount of action, especially as the show progresses. 3 years ago  
Except, you know, all the benefits that come with increased immigration. 3 years ago +1
I think it's clear humans aren't getting any better (although cars are designed to be much safer), but computer programs get more advanced every day... especially with machine learning and artificial intelligence. 3 years ago +1
I'm more of an act utilitarian, 3 years ago  
I would say at least 99% of people don't follow anything close to a consistent moral framework, however. I personally am very sympathetic to utilitarianism. 3 years ago  
How does it suck? 3 years ago  
Islam isn't a race... 3 years ago +1
What's with all the questions about slavery? 3 years ago  
It's a she, but okay. 3 years ago +3
Would reduce road accidents and traffic inefficiency by a great deal. 3 years ago  
We can already do B (just not to a very large extent). 3 years ago  
http://www.5z8.info/trojan_j2a1va_gain-inches 3 years ago  
Uhhh, not all of Africa is in extreme poverty. 3 years ago +2
Capitalism is the source of virtually all the wealth in the world. To be fair, communism had some success, and I would prefer to a traditional economy, but it's way worse at efficiently allocating goods and services than capitalism. 3 years ago +1
TV isn't really needed any more. Ads are important for revenue though. Many many many more websites would require a subscription fee if ads weren't used. Not only would it reduce the entertainment value of the internet, but it would lower productivity and slow economic growth. 3 years ago  
Because they're better for the environment and help lower the price of food. Also they could be used to make food taste better and be more nutritious in the future. 3 years ago  
A strap on 3 years ago  
Neither 3 years ago +1
Yeah 3 years ago  
Yeah, and neither was Greece when you think about it. They were basically just a collection of city states until Greece was conquered by the Macedonians and the Romans. 3 years ago  
China wouldn't have to use nukes. Japan has virtually no military, a smaller (and aging) population, and a smaller economy. 3 years ago  
But that still gives voters in smaller states a disproportionate amount of power, since each chamber of congress has roughly equal power. The two senators from Wyoming have just as much power as the senators from California, despite representing a much smaller population. 3 years ago  
I don't like the system where each state gets two senators. It's dumb how California (38.8 million) gets 2 senators while Wyoming (580,000) also gets two. 3 years ago +1
Turkey has a much more powerful military. 3 years ago +1
China has a much larger economy and population size. Russia might have a very slight military advantage at present but in the event of a war China would be able to produce more weapons (tanks, guns, drones, planes, ships, etc.) and recruit more soldiers. So if there are no nukes then I'd say China would win for sure. 3 years ago +4
Assuming it's just China vs Japan then China wins easily. 3 years ago +1
Japan doesn't have nukes, but China does. 3 years ago +1
Without nukes? USA. If nukes are used everyone loses. 3 years ago  
An investment bank. 3 years ago  
I have an ancient Roman coin in my bedroom that is like 1800 years old so 3 years ago  
You could sell a lightsaber for more than $5 million. 3 years ago  
A d!ck 3 years ago  
I think that would be true of some major cities/industrial centers in some countries, but that's also the case in Europe, although probably to a lesser extent. 3 years ago +2
Lol, it's just a weird thing to say, since Asia stretches from like the Middle East to Siberia. 3 years ago +1
Maybe it would help solve the clusterf*ck that is currently the middle east. 3 years ago  
With over 4 billion people and 17 million square miles of land, it seems a bit dumb to call the whole place gross. 3 years ago +2
Oh yeah for sure 3 years ago  
Lol it's a joke. He's pretending to be the "PC Principal" character from South Park. 3 years ago +1
It was Peri who mentioned which school you go to a while back not dmj, just saying 3 years ago  
Lol this is crazy. We were sitting probably near each other in the same class and didn't know about it. 3 years ago +3
They're not bullsh*t, they're just misused. IQ tests are well established for both its usefulness and limitations. 3 years ago  
We already have more than enough food to feed the world. The problem is properly distributing it to places where there is famine, since many of those places lack proper infrastructure and institutions. 3 years ago  
Me 3 years ago +1
Without a penis. 3 years ago +2
I guess the women who answer this question get a free sex change too. 3 years ago +2
INTJ or INFJ, depending on when I take it. 3 years ago  
I haven't seen much of A. 3 years ago  
Hypothermia will kill you faster than thirst. 3 years ago  
Why pay for the same product? There's no evidence that commercially available GMOs are in any way harmful to human health, and they're probably good for the environment. 3 years ago  
Obviously. 3 years ago  
Ah, I see. That makes more sense. 3 years ago  
Uh how do you figure that? He's polling at like 3-4%. I think Marco Rubio or Ted Cruz have the greatest chance of getting the nomination at this point, although it's genuinely hard to say. Even if Paul did manage to take the nomination he'd probably lose to Clinton/Sanders. 3 years ago  
You don't need to take pills for "protein" on a vegan diet (that's not even practical given you need ~50g per day so I don't know where the hell you got that idea). Anyway, you can be much much healthier on A and it's also much much cheaper and efficient. 3 years ago +2
You mean I own a company with 7 billion in revenue? Sounds fine to me. 3 years ago  
The US paid for the Louisiana territory. 3 years ago +2
Obama (sarcasm) 3 years ago  
It's just an exchange of money for a service, like paying a lawyer or accountant. 3 years ago  
The US capital doesn't belong in Kenya. 3 years ago  
B has way more influence in our political system. 3 years ago  
Put me in that 3 years ago  
Really? That's surprising. Still, I think it'd be too dark during the winter for my liking. 3 years ago  
Much better on social policy and civil liberties. 3 years ago  
Less likely to be 100% incompetent. 3 years ago  
More moderate and less of a Christian evangelist. 3 years ago  
I wouldn't want it to be dark all day during the winter. 3 years ago  
That debate probably won't change much, poll wise. I predict that if Trump's lead grows or shrinks it won't be a result of the debate. It's possible that Carson's popularity will shrink due to more revelations about him lying about his past. Then again, the more crazy stuff these people say, the more popular they seem to become. 3 years ago  
Mike Huckabee is worse. 3 years ago  
Some of both, but mostly A. 3 years ago  
I think we really need to be careful about too much military intervention in the region. The terrorist attack in France was horrible, but bombing ISIS as retribution doesn't necessarily make the world any safer. There are often unintended consequences. 3 years ago +1
Okay let me break this down for you. If you save the baby, it's not like there's another baby that would starve in its place, since we're talking about the first world here. At worst, there'd be an extra baby in foster care or an orphanage. In the case of the puppy, if you save the puppy, there's a higher probability of a puppy dying in its place because saving this puppy decreasing the probability of adopting another puppy (meaning that there'd be one extra puppy killed due to overpopulation). 3 years ago  
That's irrelevant. The marginal impact of saving the child is larger, because there is a lower probability of another child dying in its place than in the case of the puppy. 3 years ago  
So are puppies 3 years ago  
I don't want to get married until I'm like 30+ 3 years ago  
Anyone who wants to get a decent paying job. 3 years ago +1
At least I'd be able to leave. 3 years ago +3
I have more work to do on Fridays. 3 years ago  
Is there any evidence he even wanted to be president? 3 years ago +1
The current rate of inflation is essentially zero right now (eg 0.8% in 2014). 3 years ago  
B looks uncomfortable. 4 years ago  
While I am a firm atheist I might point out that these are not mutually exclusive. One can definitely believe that God was the driving force behind the chemical and biological forces (i.e. evolution) that created humans. 4 years ago  
Maple syrup is probably my favorite sweetener. 4 years ago  
Are you sure about that? It's easy to remember Hitler because he's very recent, relatively speaking, but the black death was a huge deal. It wiped out 1/3-1/2 of Europe and many historians think it was the shortage of labor that sparked the rapid technological advancement Europe experienced in the following centuries. 4 years ago  
It depends on the situation of course. I think for example that abortion is almost always morally defensible, but in that case clearly the fetus has no idea what's going on and is in no place to defend itself. 4 years ago  
Sure. As long as it's consensual. This may be a generalization but it seems like a lot of those religious sects that involve polygamy seem to also involve some coercion of the women who are going to marry a single man. 4 years ago +1
But what if it's a singular woman and more than two men? 4 years ago  
Homosexuality is found in most human cultures and seems to be natural, whatever that word means. But why is something bad simply because it's unnatural? Cars, planes, bikes, etc. are all unnatural and therefore evil, right? Of course not. 4 years ago +5
Me neither. 4 years ago  
I won't be going outside much. 4 years ago  
Quicker. 4 years ago  
To be fair, there are some decent universities in the South. For example: Rice, Vanderbilt, Duke, University of North Carolina. 4 years ago +1
Not as obese as B though. 4 years ago +1
A very important decision. 4 years ago +1
They're frequently thought of as the same but if pleasure is more physical sensations that you get from basic things like food and sex and happiness is more contentment and satisfaction with life then I'd have to choose happiness over pleasure. I voted wrong because I thought the question asked, "would you rather only be able to experience..." 4 years ago  
It's kind of a big deal. 4 years ago +6
300 was terrible. 4 years ago  
It was a conspiracy but not by the US government. 4 years ago  
You just have to think of someone who's not very well known. 4 years ago  
Globally. 4 years ago +3
Not necessarily. Suppose for example that the person that picks B sells some of the unlimited videogames and then gives the money to those in extreme poverty. 4 years ago  
Marbury vs Madison. 4 years ago +1
Just because we're not exactly sure how the pyramids were constructed doesn't mean that aliens were the likely builders. It's much more likely that the Egyptians simply had a method of construction that we're not aware of (although I think we do have some reasonable theories) than aliens coming to Earth. 4 years ago +1
Healthier. 4 years ago +1
I would guess pancakes aren't a ubiquitous food in France like they are in the United States. I could be wrong though. 4 years ago  
You might as well ask whether gravity is real and happening now or invented by political elitists. 4 years ago +2
Neither of those are communist anymore. Cuba is still definitely more communistic than either China or Russia. 4 years ago +2
Iran 4 years ago  
United States 4 years ago  
It's estimated about 90% of the population of Pompeii survived. Most people would have had time to run away, but everyone who stayed in the city was killed. 4 years ago  
Not really. Like Baitalon said, even a far large number of insects wouldn't amount to the worth of one average human life, or one of other very smart creatures (dolphins, apes, pigs, etc.). 4 years ago  
Easy question. The richest person in the poorest country is still incredibly rich even by first world standards. 4 years ago +1
The civil war was largely about slavery, despite what modern confederate apologists might think. 4 years ago  
Buying lots of little things (gas, food, books, games, etc) would add up to be way more $50,000 over time. 4 years ago +1
God almost certainly does not exist. 4 years ago  
...which are also referred to as salts. 4 years ago  
Spanish is more widely spoken. 4 years ago  
Well at least I'm not a Nazi. 4 years ago +5
You need salt or you die. 4 years ago +1
Pigs are like dogs, but smarter. 4 years ago  
You get more calories for roughly the same amount of harm inflicted. 4 years ago  
Not really. Here's a video of Hans Rosling explaining how this isn't the case, at least with diseases that are common in the developing world (where population growth is a problem). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BkSO9pOVpRM 4 years ago  
I'd rather be a young billionaire than die. 4 years ago  
They both seem a little cruel to me, but in the case of an anorexic they absolutely need to eat. Depriving an obese kid of food isn't going to help, since they need to eat properly, not eat no food. 4 years ago +3
I usually feel sick after eating donuts. 4 years ago  
It deserves serious attention, but there are much larger problems that can currently be solved much more efficiently. These deserve more of our attention. 4 years ago +1
It's a rabbit that was genetically modified to express a gene originating from jellyfish. 4 years ago  
What's the big deal? 4 years ago +4
Use it to improve health among the global poor. 4 years ago  
From the year 1776. 4 years ago +1
Most successful prostitute? I'd be proud of him. 4 years ago  
There are way more organ donors in places where it's opt-out rather than opt-in. 4 years ago +1
What about non-Christian theists? 4 years ago +1
Not necessarily. Suppose that with option B the person is only 10% slower and weaker, then it would be very challenging compared to if in A you're only lets say 10% weaker. It's just impossible to tell with the given information. 4 years ago  
It'll probably die off eventually, like every other religion. There may be some isolated pockets of people that still follow it though, just like there are people that still worship the Ancient Greek gods. 4 years ago +1
Why would weed being legal cause people to die? 4 years ago +3
A is only a fallacy if you use it deductively. The fact that 99.9% or so biologists accept evolution doesn't PROVE that evolution is true, but since virtually all experts in the field agree that evolution is true provides support for it. 4 years ago  
...Which means almost exactly the same thing. The definition does not require a particular body fat percentage in order for one to be considered fit or athletic. 4 years ago +1
I think so. 4 years ago +1
Here's a dictionary definition of athletic that I think most people would agree pretty much covers the usage of the word: "physically active and strong; good at athletics or sports: " I think that sumo wrestlers, despite being fat, could definitely be considered athletic. 4 years ago +1
Sumo wrestling. 4 years ago +1
Duh? At least with B there's a chance of survival. 4 years ago  
Why is it any better to kill and eat a chicken than a dog or cat or any other pet? 4 years ago +1
I wouldn't ever exist if my mom decided to abort me when I was a fetus. One could just as easily ask how you would feel if your parents didn't have sex at one particular moment, because you would never come into being that way either. 4 years ago  
If by decent you mean less than 50%, then okay. 4 years ago  
But is it necessarily bad to kill an innocent human being? 4 years ago  
The FDA regulates the safety of food and medicine. 4 years ago  
Yes, they kill it. But how is it murder? I'm assuming you're talking about murder in a sort of moral/philosophical way because murder is a legal term. 4 years ago  
I don't think rats tend to kill themselves. 4 years ago  
How so? 4 years ago  
Weren't you the one who posted a question saying animal cruelty should be illegal? 4 years ago +1
" wasn't saying everyone had to eat meat because it's tradition. I was saying it seemed traditional to some people (including me)" Okay, but my point was that tradition isn't a very compelling reason to maintain an unjust status quo. "and what does rape, murder, and x have anything to do with being vegan? That's not tradition, that's just choice, like how humans in the past chose to eat meat and animals. And that's not natural. " Rape, genocide, etc. are all perfectly normal and natural human behaviors. Maybe they've become less acceptable over the past several hundred years, but they're still natural. Again, my point was that simply because something is normal, natural, or traditional does not make it good or morally permissible. "Experts may disagree, but I'm my own person for agreeing." Okay, but you have to have a good reason for agreeing. The majority of ethicists agree that eating meat is morally objectionable, and most arguments in favor of eating meat aren't taken very seriously in academia. Of course there are some moral philosophers who don't find eating meat to be morally wrong, but they have better reasons for their position than "it's traditional/natural/necessary." 4 years ago +1
My point was that we shouldn't take propositions that have no evidence behind them seriously. 4 years ago +1
What if there's an invisible unknowable dinosaur sitting right behind you, right at this moment? What if its just beyond our knowledge and understanding? 4 years ago  
If it's some random person person claiming to be God? I'd ignore him. If it was a voice in my head I'd probably check in at a mental institution and get professional help for schizophrenic symptoms. 4 years ago  
But way more handednessist 4 years ago  
I don't find the idea of hell to be coherent with anything we know about physics or logically coherent even in a theistic worldview. But putting that aside, your statement is like saying there's no evidence that pink unicorns don't exist. 4 years ago +3
Physical abuse often causes severe mental damage in addition to physical damage. 4 years ago +4
But there's no evidence that hell exists. 4 years ago +1
Schools (I assume) cost more money to construct/repair and serve a more important social purpose. 4 years ago  
Not necessarily, agnostic atheism is simply a rejection of a belief in God(s). Gnostic atheism on the other hand is the view that asserts "God(s) do not exist." 4 years ago  
Religion generally implies some sort of collective, usually supernatural beliefs about the world. Atheism is simply the rejection of the proposition "God(s) exist". 4 years ago  
Atheism isn't a religion lol. That's like saying not collecting stamps is a hobby. 4 years ago +4
Freud's ideas were largely pseudoscientific. 4 years ago  
Most vegans like the taste of animal products, but simply choose not to purchase them because of the sheer amount of animal cruelty involved in rearing animals for food. " I just think it's natural for humans to eat meat" Appealing to nature isn't an adequate substitute for a rational argument. It's also perfectly natural to enslave other humans, rape, kill, exterminate other populations of humans, etc. But we should choose not to participate in these actions because of the amount of suffering that is inflicted. Similarly, we should choose not to buy animal products because of the amount of suffering that is inflicted on non-human animals in those industries. 4 years ago  
You know, a lot of vegans like the taste of meat and animal products, but simply don't participate in buying them because of the amount of animal cruelty that is involved in the process of rearing animals for food. 4 years ago  
"Why stop eating meat when it's part of the pyramid of health?" You don't need animal products to be healthy. This is a well established fact, and agreed upon by virtually every major dietetic and health organization in the world. "Yeah, go on about the killings of animals, but humans have been eating meat/animals for years" Really? Doing x is okay because humans have been doing x for years? This is an appeal to antiquity. You could just as easily say we should rape, commit genocide, enslave other humans, etc. because those behaviors are perfectly natural and traditional. "Vegan concept, to me, is stupid and unnecessary." The majority of experts would disagree. 4 years ago +1
Plants aren't sentient beings. 4 years ago  
Being anti-religious is a good thing. 4 years ago +1
You don't even need two kidneys, so I'm assuming that having 1 bad kidney isn't all that bad. 4 years ago +2
The pictures are a bit biased. 4 years ago +5
As the CEO. 4 years ago  
The tip of my finger for a fraction of a second. 4 years ago  
It's somewhat irritating when religious people mock ancient civilizations for believing things like lightning and earthquakes had supernatural causes, but those same people may believe the big bang never happened or evolution never occurred. At least ancient civilizations lived in a pre-scientific era. 4 years ago +2
I don't think it'd be like much of anything to be an insect. 4 years ago  
More overall versatility. 4 years ago  
A member of the species Homo sapiens. 4 years ago  
Even if I was fat I don't think I'd choose A. 4 years ago  
I don't see how that's the case. I'm sure there's a perfectly good evolutionary explanation for why the double standard exists, but I don't see a compelling reason for preserving it. 4 years ago +2
Paleo diet is too much woo woo and pseudoscience. 4 years ago  
For most practical purposes I don't think the differences are very significant, but for some thought experiments it may be harder for a preference utilitarian to give a satisfying answer, and vice versa. 4 years ago  
Why do you care specifically about earthquake victims? What if I told you that for the money it takes to save 1 earthquake victim, you could save 2 children from dying of malaria? 4 years ago +1
There's no country that doesn't have at least some corruption. 4 years ago +3
Clif builder bars are pretty good. 4 years ago  
Curbing population growth is very important. 4 years ago  
In some places there are restrictions on what legally can be done to animals. But the vast majority of animal abuse remains legal because of two reasons 1) financial interests involved. 2) people don't care enough to make it a political issue. 4 years ago +2
Only because there are only a few genetically engineered crops on the market, so that would greatly limit my food supply, whereas basically anything can be produced organically. With A I might waste a lot of money but it's better than only eating corn, soybeans, papayas, sugar beets, and the other few GMO crops. 4 years ago  
Well, if I'm right positive subjective experiences are intrinsically good, in any meaningful sense of the word. Of course you can say that maybe they're bad, or neither inherently good nor bad, but that seems to violate all intuition. This is why I'm not certain that morality is objective, because I think maybe I'm wrong in thinking that anything has *intrinsic* value. But I don't think this is the case. 4 years ago  
I don't think anyone decides what is right or wrong, but rather that morality can be derived using reason from basic axiomatic principles (eg "All else being equal, experiencing pleasure is better than experiencing pain"). The point isn't that any one person knows exactly what's right or wrong, and philosophers are not anywhere near reaching a consensus on any particular moral theory. But it seems that we can at least reason that certain actions, or ethical theories, are more moral or reasonable than others based on reason alone. 4 years ago  
I agree with B 4 years ago +1
I think it's very correct to say that different cultures hold different standards of right and wrong, and that sometimes these standards can influence what is actually right or wrong behavior. I don't think it can be concluded that therefore a culture that, say, tortures babies for fun is not participating in something wrong independent of what the culture holds to be moral or immoral behavior. 4 years ago +1
I think you're confusing description and prescription. Sure, people believe all sorts of different things about morality, which is largely influenced by genetics, culture, etc. But whether something is actually right or wrong isn't predicated on what people believe, just like whether evolution is true or not doesn't depend on the percent of people who believe it. There are some philosophers who hold non-cognitivist or moral subjectivist views that basically states that moral statements cannot be true or false, so saying "Killing is wrong" is like saying "Boo on killing" or like someone might say "I like/don't like icecream, but there's no fact as to whether icecream is good or bad". But such creatures are in the minority. I'm not saying you're wrong, you may be right, but rather that it's arrogant to simply assert that morality is subjective, even though most experts believe otherwise. 4 years ago +1
We're still in an ice age. 4 years ago  
You do realize the vast majority of philosophers disagree, right? 4 years ago +5
I think it's objective though. 4 years ago  
You don't have to believe that animal abuse is an important as people abuse in order to agree that some forms of animal abuse (eg factory farming) should be made illegal. 4 years ago +4
"You are a left moderate social libertarian. Left: 3.83, Libertarian: 3.21 " Foreign Policy: -2.94 Culture: -7.96 4 years ago +1
I don't get why people want to preserve these archaic traditions. 4 years ago +2
Gluten isn't a food group. It's a protein found in certain grains ( i.e. wheat, barley, rye). 4 years ago  
What's the difference between a fact and an opinion? 4 years ago  
Lichen. 4 years ago  
What? It's really easy to get a GED. 4 years ago  
Who said anything about a chicken's life being worth the same as a human's? I can see a reason to believe that a chicken has the same right to life as an infant or severely disabled Homo sapien, but I've never seen an ethicist argue that a chicken deserves the same right to life as a normal human adult. 4 years ago +2
"I'm pretty sure that the fact that a diet that wouldn't even have been possible 200 years ago due to their science's inability to synthesize B12 can't be that healthy." Why? Why is it that relevant? It sounds like an implicit appeal to nature to me. The iron thing is true to an extent, but it's perfectly possible to get enough iron from plant sources, so it's really not relevant. It's generally agreed upon that vitamin D2 is absorbed by the body as well as D3 (except in the very large doses used to treat deficiency) but there are plant based sources of D3 so it doesn't matter. And no the cholesterol thing is not true, dietary cholesterol is not recommended for consumption. Too much of it may even be harmful for some people. And yes, I've seen pictures of African children with kwashiorkor, but vegans in the developed world are not susceptible to that condition. The protein thing is not true for the most part, since a varied vegan diet can provide enough of every essential amino acid. Here's a video of a big dude on YouTube saying pretty much the same thing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyBqDbrNqxc 4 years ago  
Okay, you have no idea what you're talking about. Why don't you at least Google before you type? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dietary_fiber 4 years ago +2
Meat doesn't contain fiber, but vegetables do contain protein. 4 years ago +3
I guess rationality, science, and philosophy are all part of "Leftism" now. Just because something is true doesn't mean it's "crazy-ass Leftism". 4 years ago +2
Really? Because that's not what the evidence indicates. Over half of your claims are demonstrably false, and the others don't make any sense. So what if vegans have to supplement B12? That's not an indication of how healthy a diet is. You can deny reality all you want, but just because you want to believe something doesn't make it true. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19562864 4 years ago +3
If by the stance that equal consideration of interests should be applied to nonhuman animals equally, then do you mean the rational stance? That sanctity of human life stuff isn't well accepted in ethics today, and it's mostly a relic of our Christian past. 4 years ago +1
Too much punishment often leads to poor results. You need a balance of both, with mostly rewards. 4 years ago  
They're more intelligent than a human fetus and yet you claim that it's murder to kill a fetus. 4 years ago +4
You have to be kidding me. There are numerous therapies including cognitive behavioral therapy that are definitely supported by evidence, and biomedical therapy is proven to work... a lot of that Freudian stuff has been discredited for over a hundred years; I'm not sure why you think that's still well accepted in psychology today. 4 years ago +5
One of those you linked to is a study from the 1920s of two people for a year that hasn't been repeated. The other is a case report. This does absolutely nothing to challenge the mountain of evidence behind established nutritional facts. There are hundreds of studies and billions of cases dealing with vegetarian and vegan diets, and it's now well established that people can be healthy without animal products. Seriously, how can you deny 99.999% of the science while using one case report and one small hundred year old study that has never been replicated and calling that evidence? 4 years ago +1
There is a greater than 0% chance that insects can suffer and if they can then that suffering matters a lot simply because of the sheer numbers of insects. http://reducing-suffering.org/speculations-on-population-dynamics-of-bug-suffering/ 4 years ago +4
The baby is closer to being a person and presumably has emotional attachment to others. 4 years ago +5
Healthier in general. Most of those energy drinks have a lot of sugar. 4 years ago  
I'm pretty sure embalmers aren't paid very well. Payscale lists the median salary as being 39,000 per year. 4 years ago  
Who cares? It's role play. 4 years ago  
Not as much can still be a lot, and with A there's a good chance of getting caught and going to prison. 4 years ago  
Canned Tomato soup is nasty though. I'd rather make my own. 4 years ago  
Mostly capitalism with some socialism on the side. 4 years ago  
Something like 80% of German casualties were to the Soviets, and the Soviet invasion of Manchuria was probably important for the Japanese surrender. 4 years ago +4
Well, dogs are frequently eaten in some countries like South Korea and China. So they aren't always man's best friend. What you're saying sounds like cultural relativism to me. 4 years ago +1
I've never had the urge to do so, but I've seen good arguments for it not being unethical to eat them. http://www.slate.com/articles/life/food/2010/04/consider_the_oyster.html 4 years ago  
What's wrong with eating dogs in your view? Pigs are at least as smart and as social an animal as dogs are. 4 years ago +1
Pretty much any animal besides roadkill or oysters, dairy products, eggs, products grown by slaves, and a few other random things. 4 years ago +1
Given that there are over one billion Muslims in the world, and terrorists taking down planes is very rare, I'd say B wouldn't be a problem. 4 years ago  
Where's your evidence that England has a higher crime rate? The homicide rate in the US is several times higher than the UK, and other trends of violent crime tend to match homicide fairly well. 4 years ago +1
My parents are pretty progressive socially. 4 years ago  
Some sports probably should be. It would be unfair though for sports where one sex has a significant biological advantage. 4 years ago +1
A flashlight would be likely to give away your position anyway. 4 years ago  
As long as it's not intended to incite violence. 4 years ago  
School lunch sucks. 4 years ago +1
It sounds as if you think non-human animals' interests don't matter, which is of course ridiculous. Like I said this is for dummies stuff. 4 years ago  
The minimum wage is probably around the natural equilibrium anyway, and welfare is important for a lot of poor families. 4 years ago +1
I don't want a kid. 4 years ago +1
In a recession, lowering taxes (expansionary fiscal policy). When the economy is doing well, cutting spending (contractionary fiscal policy). 4 years ago  
Jury nullification. 4 years ago +1
Because people almost always change their mind later. 4 years ago  
Some different human populations might have statistically higher levels of certain hormones, but individual variation is probably greater. 4 years ago +2
Do you really believe that? Do you really think mowing your lawn is possibly worse than mowing down some puppies or school children? Plants don't have a nervous system and aren't sentient. Really this is "for dummies" stuff. 4 years ago +1
Of course, I wasn't born a vegetarian. 4 years ago +1
What else can we do with them? There aren't enough people willing to adopt and there aren't enough resources to house them all. Sometimes it's best to put them down, unfortunately. And I don't think there's anything particularly special about kittens which, while undoubtedly cute, don't suffer any more than the billions of cows, pigs, chickens, etc. who are kept in much worse conditions on factory farms. 4 years ago +1
I don't think there's any humane way of slaughtering animals (although some methods are far more humane than others) since no matter what the animal will feel some fear, discomfort, pain, and is deprived of its life. Nevertheless the larger issue is how the animals are raised, and to my knowledge for meat to be halal doesn't require any humane standards except for slaughter which is also controversial because it may actually be worse than some of the modern practices. 4 years ago +1
Yeah, I doubt I would really do that in real life and there are so many other ways to make money, but it does make sense. There's a huge overpopulation of kittens thanks to irresponsible breeding, and some of those kittens must be euthanized, and if I didn't do it, someone else would. Might as well put some of that $2 million to good use. 4 years ago  
I'd donate some of the money to animal charities and save millions of animals. 4 years ago +1
That's true, but they're very hard to find, at least in America. 4 years ago  
But is there a relevant difference? Eating animals to survive is one thing, of course. But that's not what people in the developed world are doing. Just like dogfighters watch dogs suffer and die for an enhanced aesthetic experience, meat-eaters pay for someone to abuse and kill an animal for an enhanced gustatory experience. Now I would say it's much less objectionable to simply killing animals for food, but there's quite a bit that's objectionable to the way the animals used for food are treated. I'm not sure if factory farming is common in Sweden, from what I've heard the conditions for farm animals aren't that bad. But in America and many other countries, something over 99% of the animals used for food are raised in factory farms. 4 years ago +2
Unless you buy from some special farms, then yes, that's pretty much how it works and how 99%+ of the animals killed for food are raised. 4 years ago +2
But if you purchase meat you may as well be. 4 years ago +2
The public schools where I live are pretty good, but if I lived in an area with poor public schools I'd go with A. 4 years ago +3
If you think torturing and killing animals for gustatory pleasure is good, then you must not have a problem with dogfighting. (if you're rational, that is) 4 years ago +7
I doubt it makes that big a difference. That bug is in a lot of red colored products by the way. 4 years ago +1
It's technically possible, but highly unlikely. 4 years ago  
No there aren't (or almost certainly aren't) dinosaurs or similarly large creatures wandering around. The species we haven't discovered are mostly microorganisms, insects, some obscure marine life, and probably a few exotic plants and small animals. 4 years ago +3
Rich people tend to have a lot of good connections, so this would be good for networking. 4 years ago  
Apparently not. So far 6/8 guys picked A. 4 years ago +2
I'd be fine with either but I think A is more likely to be mature, knowledgeable, etc. 4 years ago +1
A minor STD. 4 years ago  
More casualties, although for an individual soldier the conditions may have been worse in WW1. 4 years ago +1
Feminists overlords? Where are you getting feminazi from that? I'm assuming it means the traditional definition of feminist since it was not explicitly stated otherwise in the question. 4 years ago +2
Who said anything about feminazis? 4 years ago +2
Jenny McCarthy? 4 years ago  
Greater chance of surviving I would guess. 4 years ago  
Gender roles suck. 4 years ago +5
Dual major might be better depending on the school/concentration. 4 years ago +1
It depends. It's hard to get into a lot of white collar careers without a college degree. School prestige also matters a lot for the more elite jobs. 4 years ago  
I'm not sure there's such a thing as healthy ice cream. I've seen some sugar free stuff, which may not be bad for you depending on its ingredients. 4 years ago  
Because it's harmful? And you can obtain the same, or nearly the same, gustatory pleasure from a vegan diet as from a non vegan diet. 4 years ago +2
Those city states were mostly direct democracies, which obviously don't benefit from political parties. 4 years ago +1
Get better genes. 4 years ago  
Obviously. Who would want A? 4 years ago +4
Doesn't sound appealing to me. 4 years ago  
They'd turn to chocolate chips. 4 years ago +2
From what I understand most physicists believe that time travel probably isn't possible, at least certainly not in the way we typically think of it. 4 years ago +2
Shurikens aren't that deadly. 4 years ago +2
I agree that veganism isn't designed with optimum health in mind, but I don't see a reason why a vegan diet can't be optimal. Here's the American Dietetic Association's position paper on vegetarian diets: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19562864 4 years ago +1
Well most people are fairly sedentary, or have better things to do than work out all day, but for those who are athletes or bodybuilders, it's still perfectly possible to get enough protein. Even being generous and saying vegans need 25% more protein, it's still perfectly possible to eat 20-30+% of calories, which amounts to 100-150 grams per 2,000 calories from protein if you emphasize higher protein plant foods. 4 years ago +1
I didn't accuse you of having them, since everyone does, but rather that your experience probably isn't a representative sample of vegans everywhere. 4 years ago +1
You don't have to get protein from soybeans, there are plenty of other good plant sources. I myself very rarely eat soyfoods. 4 years ago +1
Where are you getting these numbers from? You'd only need about ~150 calories of beans to get 10 grams of protein. There plenty of protein dense plant foods, and since the average person only needs about 50 grams of protein per day I don't see why it even matters. 4 years ago +1
I'm not sure how those numbers were calculated, but that doesn't seem close to the actual numbers. Like I said, no health professional advises vegans to eat several times the protein as a non-vegan for the same effect. There are some who advise eating 25% more protein, but even that may not be necessary depending upon the primary plant protein source. 4 years ago +1
Do you have statistics to back that up, or is that just your personal experience (which is clouded by numerous cognitive biases)? 4 years ago +1
My point was that plant foods have more than enough protein, which is a nutrient, not a food group. You can add more protein to a salad by adding plant foods high in protein like beans, seeds, nuts, meat analogues, etc. 4 years ago +1
How do you know you've never met a man with a nice "bod" who's vegan? 4 years ago +2
The plural of anecdote is not data. There's no evidence to suggest that vegans living in developed countries are at risk for protein deficiency, and there's certainly very little risk when a lot of high lysine foods are consumed like beans, lentils, peanuts, soyfoods, quinoa, etc. 4 years ago +1
Okay that website is BS. There are two things to consider with protein: amino acid profile and bio availability. It's easy to get enough of every amino acid from eating a variety of plant foods throughout the day, including foods high in lysine like legumes. And the bio availability really isn't that different from plant foods and animal foods. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_value http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein_Digestibility_Corrected_Amino_Acid_Score Some health experts recommend that vegans eat 25% more protein than is recommended for non-vegans, but there's no evidence that vegans need several times the protein as a meat eater. 4 years ago +1
Fur farms are cruel. 4 years ago  
And you don't need animal products to get enough protein. The average person only needs 50 grams per day, which is very easily obtainable. You could also easily eat way more than that if you need to. 4 years ago +2
You do realize that protein isn't a food, right? Virtually all foods have protein, and there are plenty of plant foods that have lots of protein. 4 years ago +1
Yeah, it sounds like you haven't met any actual vegans. 4 years ago +3
Why not? 4 years ago +1
The only vitamin you really need to take (either from fortified foods or supplements) is b12 and maybe vitamin D, but non-vegans who live at high latitudes may also need to worry about this if they're not eating salmon or swordfish every day. 4 years ago +2
15-40 ish 4 years ago  
In general more prosperous and probably a better quality of life. 4 years ago +1
B isn't weird. 4 years ago  
Keep in mind that there's a possibility of an extreme terrorist attack using nuclear or biological weapons which could kill hundreds of millions of people. 4 years ago  
Yes, because medical testing can save billions of lives. Of course alternatives should be used when possible and more should be developed, but that's the reality of the situation. Hundreds of times more animals are used for food, and they're generally treated much worse, and it's completely unnecessary and wasteful. It's a much more serious serious problem than animal testing even if you think animal testing is wrong. It's not like companies would keep producing and killing animals if people don't buy meat. People buying meat is the entire reason why these animals are killed. Seriously, your comments make no sense. 4 years ago +1
Show me a part of the world where the majority of animals are raised humanely and slaughtered properly. Okay? Even if there were such a place, that doesn't excuse your actions, because you and I live in North America. In the United States and Canada, over 99% of animals are raised on factory farms. 4 years ago +1
Killing in a nice manner? Well that's certainly not what's happening. And it is for gustatory pleasure, since people (with the exception of a few people in the developing world) could easily eat something else. Raising animals actually wastes food, since you have to grow crops and then feed those crops to the animals and then eat the animals afterwards. 4 years ago +1
duh 4 years ago +1
If it's a job that pays really well and is somewhat enjoyable. 4 years ago  
Might get a promotion. 4 years ago +1
One that just died. 4 years ago  
Who says the slut isn't a wonderful person as well? 4 years ago +4
There's a difference between torturing and killing billions of animals for gustatory pleasure and using animals for research that helps develop life saving medical treatments. 4 years ago +1
Unfortunately animal testing is pretty much necessary for medical advancement at this time. But there should be more restrictions on it, and invasive testing should only be carried out if a significant gain is to be expected. 4 years ago +4
I'm sure there are at least a few wise investments to be made in Greece. 4 years ago  
Less dangerous. 4 years ago  
On the supreme court. 4 years ago  
I can be both though wink wink 4 years ago  
That's silly. Drugs like anabolic steroids and growth hormone just enhance the ordinary effects of training. And people are taking drugs anyway. Right now it's just about who can afford the undetectable performance enhancers. 4 years ago  
Test for safety, not drugs. Instead of saying "You can do X and Y to increase ___ hormone levels but you can't do Z" just have a safe upper limit. 4 years ago  
Not if you change the rules. 4 years ago  
Why not? People are already perfectly capable of having polygamous relationships, so I don't see what's wrong with allowing more than two people to enter into a marriage agreement. 4 years ago +1
It tends to be hold back social and scientific progress. And it allows millions of people to believe something insane in an organized fashion, which can be a recipe for disaster. 4 years ago +5
It gives kids time to be active instead of just sitting at a desk all day. 4 years ago +3
I like charity, but I generally only give to organizations recommended by charity evaluators like GiveWell. 4 years ago  
Better standard of living. 4 years ago  
Not really. 4 years ago  
Possibly both? There are genes that predispose people to violence or psychopathy, and if they're combined with a violent or unstable home lives can lead to a lot of problems. So it's evident that we are products of our genes and live experiences, so to that extent violence is certainly an expression of underlying factors. 4 years ago  
Wyoming is desolate. 4 years ago +1
DrObvious 4 years ago +1
There have been arguments made for women's equality for hundreds if not thousands of years. But even if that weren't true, what of it? Slavery was seldom argued against in some places for thousands of years and only came under serious scrutiny in the past few hundred. Does that mean it was a good idea? 4 years ago +7
It's an optical illusion. http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/what-color-is-this-dress-its-an-optical-illusion/ 4 years ago  
Isn't the calculation in option A from that White House petition? 4 years ago  
I live on the first floor and my phone has an Otterbox. 4 years ago +1
$5,000 isn't bad for 10 or so minutes' work. 4 years ago +3
If it's an early stage abortion then it's morally equivalent to killing a plant. 4 years ago +2
A would kill you. There's only a chance of getting AIDS or some other serious STD with B. 4 years ago  
That looks pretty good and I'll hopefully be sure to try it sometime. Thanks for sharing :) 4 years ago  
No, I haven't tried to make ones at home yet, but I'd be interested in trying it. Do you have any good recipes? 4 years ago  
As long as it's relatively peaceful. 4 years ago +2
Less likely to be ground up or boiled alive. 4 years ago  
There are good substitutes for most dairy products, although I haven't found a really good non-dairy cheese yet. 4 years ago  
I'm sure people realize $70,000 is quite a good salary, but $400,000 is extremely good and some people may choose the money despite needing to work very hard and be under a lot of stress. 4 years ago  
"scrawny, sickly, and weak" There's no evidence for that. You can find every essential nutrient for optimum health in plants or supplements. And the only supplement you really need to take is B12 and maybe vitamin D (non-vegans need to worry about this too if they're not eating salmon or swordfish every day). 4 years ago +1
Most of American's questions lol 4 years ago +5
Billionaire. 4 years ago +2
Umm do you not understand basic physics and biology? You need to feed animals plants, which therefore makes livestock production require much more land, energy, and water. Like I said, livestock production also causes immense suffering and air and water pollution. It seems to me that being a vegetarian is not only not a bad choice, but the far better choice. 4 years ago  
A is incredibly easy. There are already meat analogues that are essentially indistinguishable from meat in blinded trials, and those will only get better. 4 years ago +1
Why is being vegetarian/vegan stupid? It reduces greenhouse gas emissions, pollution, deforestation, and greatly reducing animal suffering. Almost all animal suffering caused by humans is in animal agriculture. 4 years ago  
Obviously. 4 years ago +1
Why? 4 years ago +4
I think he was saying that he couldn't be anorexic because anorexics barely eat. 4 years ago +2
A small insect. 4 years ago +1
It isn't. But one can easily say that there's no reason to give rights to a being with absolutely no conscious, desires, preferences, or the capacity to feel pain or suffer in any way. That same can't be said for many animals. 4 years ago +2
Uhh no? I was just showing how "They're animals. They don't get rights." isn't an argument. 4 years ago  
Who said anything about the government? I was just explaining to you why current protections for animals are far far far from adequate, a point which I guess you have conceded. 4 years ago  
There are some nice areas in the Bronx. 4 years ago +1
They're blacks. They don't get rights. 4 years ago +1
So because something is/was evolutionarily advantageous we should participate in that behavior? Genocide is evolutionarily advantageous. So is rape. Should we also be participating in those activities then? Your argument for torturing animals is essentially "might makes right" 4 years ago +1
But why is human society important? The subjectivist can't provide any justification for that besides "I personally care about it" I think you're confusing disagreement with subjectivity. Different people and cultures hav their own standards, but some of them could just be wrong. It seems like we can be reasonably sure that torturing babies for fun is a less moral act than helping the weak and vulnerable. Extreme sufferring is bad in any meaningful sense of the word. 4 years ago  
No we don't. There are no regulations for how many chickens you can put in a battery cage. There are no regulations on how many animals can be confined in a shed. They are no regulations protecting animals from brutal mutiliation, etc, etc. honestly the fact that you wrote this comment just screams ignorance. Why don't you look up some videos of factory farms? 4 years ago +4
If that's true, then there's absolutely no point in arguing about anything (like whether slavery, genocide, etc. is wrong) since it's just personal opinion. I'm reasonably sure that aesthetic value is subjective, but far from sure that moral principles/axioms are inherently subjective. 4 years ago +3
Lions don't live on the jungle. 4 years ago +2
Mostly A and to some extent the exclusion part of B. 4 years ago +3
Duh who would want A? 4 years ago +2
With some exceptions. 4 years ago  
If you pick A then you're either dumb or ignorant. 4 years ago +4
And some blacks had it better than whites during the antebellum south, so slavery must have been perfectly fine, right? 4 years ago +8
Maybe protection from torture? 4 years ago +2
But if a being has no sentience, then how can it be a person? 4 years ago +2
The key distinction here is that people in comas had lives, experiences, thoughts, etc. and could potentially wake up from the coma as essentially the same person. If you mean someone in a persistent vegetative state that has no chance of becoming conscious, then I don't think it would be wrong to kill that person provided it's what the relatives want. 4 years ago +2
I said it would be okay to kill the fetus, not that the parents have to do so, but that it would not be a morally wrong action. And yes, because fetuses can't experience much, their life isn't particularly rich. Much like an insect. Of course later stage fetuses are more developed and can feel pain, and so their interests should be taken into consideration, but I don't see why we should consider a being who has no interests simply because it is biologically a member of the species homo sapiens. 4 years ago +2
Respecting faith? You mean respecting beliefs without evidence? Why is religion not up for debate and why should religious beliefs be immune from criticism? 4 years ago +1
No. I think in the case of abortion, the parents should decide whether the child should live or not. 4 years ago +2
Fur is cruel and it's ugly. 4 years ago  
No it has greatly improved society. 4 years ago +6
Rape? Wouldn't that provide more incentives for rapists to kill their victims since the penalty is the same and they would have a lower chance of getting caught? 4 years ago +2
If the being has previous been conscious, like a person in a coma or asleep (which are arguably conscious states in some circumstances) then no it would not be okay. If it's an embryo or early stage fetus then yes it would be okay because that being has never had conscious awareness, can't feel pain, and doesn't have a life that can go well or badly. A sleeping person has thoughts, experiences, desires, and a life that can go well or badly and wakes up as the same person that he or she was prior to going to sleep. 4 years ago +3
They are humans, but not persons. 4 years ago +1
If the being is never conscious, like a rock or a tree, then yes, provided the killing doesn't have a negative effect on conscious beings. If you mean killing a sleeping person, then no. 4 years ago +3
In most societies at least. 4 years ago +1
i sign change.org petitions a lot. It's easy and the petitions actually, surprisingly, result in changes being made. 4 years ago +3
Yes, provided the means produce the best consequences, all things considered, of the options available. 4 years ago +1
B is pretty light skinned. 4 years ago  
Since most aborted fetuses probably can't even feel pain. 4 years ago +5
Yeah I'm familiar with the argument, but it's not a convincing argument. Why does there have to be a first cause? Why does the first cause have to be God? Why does God not require a cause? 4 years ago  
1. How do you know? 2. How do you know? 3. Yes we do. 4. God of the gaps again. 4 years ago  
Darwin Day. 4 years ago  
Still a lot of the discoveries in physics can lead to significant improvements in quality of life. And you still get about a million dollars, which could easily go to save thousands of people. Saving one person's life really isn't that hard. By some estimates as little as $200 can save someone's life. 4 years ago  
Many Nobel prizes are for things that can potentially save thousands of not millions of lives. Not to mention the prize money alone could be used to save thousands of lives. This is a dumb question. 4 years ago  
If A were the case then all heterosexual women would be gay. 4 years ago +4
But it's not morally wrong because it's nasty, whatever that word means. 4 years ago +2
So gay incest and incest with infertile people and/or adequate contraception must be okay, right? 4 years ago +2
That's not what the constitution says. 4 years ago  
There's been research done on this and it seems to just be a cultural taboo, since no one can provide a rational reason why consensual non reproductive incest is wrong. 4 years ago +2
But something being nasty isn't a reason for it to be morally wrong. 4 years ago +2
It's two words. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_sapiens 4 years ago  
No. That just contributes to the production of more chickens. 4 years ago  
Race is a biological term. There are no races among Homo sapiens. The word race as used in modern society refers more to culture than biology, and while I would say some cultures are superior to others, there's no reason to think white skinned individuals are superior to individuals of other skin colors. 4 years ago +3
I agree, but for these questions you're supposed to accept the hypothetical. 4 years ago +1
But that's your opinion. There are a lot of things people buy that I find pointless, but that doesn't mean underage people shouldn't be allowed to buy them. 4 years ago +2
It's just an object designed for sexual pleasure. Why shouldn't underage people be allowed to buy one? 4 years ago +3
It would probably affect the parents of the infant. 4 years ago +1
Lenin was very instrumental in the Russian revolution and establishing the Soviet state. If it wasn't for Lenin, Stalin wouldn't have come to power. 4 years ago +6
You can already easily do A. You could sell the lightsaber for millions and save a lot more children. 4 years ago  
Unless I suffered from some incurable disease or was in incredibly poor condition, B wouldn't be too hard to fix. 4 years ago +1
The United States is a secular nation and I don't see a good reason to have under God in the pledge. And to those who say it's traditional or something like that, the original pledge was modified to include the words"under God" during the 1950s red scare. 4 years ago +2
Oh nice I got mentioned on one of these questions lol 4 years ago +1
Your brain would just adjust to it. 4 years ago +7
Of course not. 4 years ago +1
According to the survey some alternative, neither, not enough information, or don't know. 4 years ago  
Ideally there would be a sterilization program to prevent further reproduction. 4 years ago  
I would switch the track. Most experts would probably switch the track too. In a survey of philosophy faculty and PhDs specializing in ethics, 79.2% would switch and only 8.8% would not. 4 years ago +2
I've seen that Soylent stuff before, and I remember the company's CEO being on the Colbert Report. It just as every essential nutrient added to it. http://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0421/5993/t/12/assets/files_Complete-Soylent-Nutrition-Facts-1p3.pdf You could theoretically live exclusively off Soylent, although I don't know why anyone would want to, but it's probably not optimal because many nutrients are best absorbed from whole foods, and there are other non essential but health promoting chemicals that are present in whole foods but probably not maltodextrin,rice protein, or canola oil. There's no real food that has every essential nutrient in adequate amounts, and that's why a balanced diet should contain multiple foods. That's really what a healthy Pizza, sandwich, or soup would be. But there's more to nutrition than the nutrients themselves. Americans get enough of almost every nutrient, with a few exceptions. But they're still not healthy. Experts in nutrition agree that a food based approach to dietary advice, rather than a nutrient focused approach, is best. Diets should be rich in foods that are health promoting like vegetables, legumes, nuts, and seeds. Greasy pepperoni deep dish pizza isn't one of those health promoting foods. 4 years ago  
I guess it's totally possible to construct a healthy pizza that you can live off of exclusively considering you can add anything as a topping. That's also true with a lot of other foods that have loose definitions like sandwiches, burgers, salads, and pasta dishes. But the typical pizza is made with a white bread crust, not so healthy sauce since restaurants typically add lots of salt and sugar to make things taste better, cheese (which isn't healthy) and meat (which also isn't healthy, especially the processed meats put on the typical pizza). And there's a lot more to nutrition than macronutrient ratios. You could just as easily say blend up some oil, protein powder, and flour and have some perfect superfood by that reasoning. 4 years ago  
White bread + cheese + sugar and sodium filled tomato sauce + unhealthy toppings = healthy? 4 years ago +1
Why not? There has to be a good enough reason to ban something that's otherwise personal choice or an agreement between individuals. And properly regulating it would help protect the prostitutes who are often severely abused in the black market. 4 years ago +3
How is Dawkins, or Maher for that matter, a misogynist or ethnocentric? 4 years ago +5
But that's your view of sex. I basically agree, but I don't see why those who want to have sex for money or pay for it shouldn't be allowed too. Also some people have physical handicaps and other issues which makes it hard for them to have sex without paying for it. 4 years ago +7
B would completely change history. A might change things a bit, but it probably wouldn't have an incredibly dramatic effect. 4 years ago  
Why? It raises tax revenue, reduces sex trafficking and black markets if it's well regulated, and let's people do what they want with their bodies. If an individual wants to sell his or her body for money then who are you to judge? 4 years ago +6
It's just a way for the flower and candy industries to make more money. 4 years ago +2
Dawkins is great. 4 years ago +2
Since a zygote from human parents is alive and undoubtedly possesses human DNA then human life obviously begins at conception. But I don't see why the organism belonging to the species Homo sapien is morally relevant when discussing things like abortion. 4 years ago +5
Legal and well regulated. 4 years ago +3
It depends. 4 years ago +1
I agree no one is directly more ethical for believing one thing or another, although beliefs inevitably impact our actions. But how we ought to eat really is an ethical question. Financially supporting an unethical industry is just as immoral as performing the action yourself. Suppose I hire a hitman to kill people I don't like. Is that really any different, morally speaking, from killing the people myself? I don't think so. Likewise it is really the consumers who are most responsible for the horrific condition on factory farms and slave plantations because. 4 years ago  
It's impossible to know for sure without further details, but there's a very high probability, statistically speaking, that the vegan is more moral because vegans are more likely to be ethically aware. They're less likely to buy products produced by slave labor or sweatshop labor and obviously don't support factory farms, and they usually have lower carbon footprints. Muslims are usually average people, although one of the tenets of Islam is charity, which, if given effectively, can make a large difference. Unfortunately many of them are also homophobic and anti-science, just like many Christians. 4 years ago +2
Well, it certainly would have varied from place to place and from time to time. But it's unclear why exactly we would want to eat like our ancestors. They may not have been eating deep fried Twinkies, but they definitely would have if Twinkies grew on trees. Basically prehistoric humans ate what they could find and were often malnourished. The modern Paleo diet isn't even an accurate representation of what our ancestors would have ate. It excludes grains and legumes, and sometimes even starchy vegetables despite the fact that hunter-gatherers consumed these things. If it were really about eating as healthy as possible, why exclude legumes, which include some of the healthiest foods? Why promote red meat consumption when it is linked to various diseases? And so on. Eating whole, unprocessed foods is generally a good idea but the Paleo diet is just a dietary fad. Most experts recommend dietary patterns with lots of vegetables, legumes, whole grains, healthy fats, etc. 4 years ago  
Every day isn't that much. 4 years ago +2
Most people can't live on 1200 calories per day for very long. I could eat 5000 or so calories every other day and be fine. 4 years ago +1
The Paleo Diet is a fad not based on scientific evidence (nor is it actually an accurate representation of what a Paleolithic person would eat, but who would actually want to eat like a hunter gatherer?) 4 years ago  
There's some educational value to zoos, but they're definitely not necessary. 4 years ago +1
I guess all of the scientists and medical professionals are complete idiots, whereas you're just a fountain of wisdom. 4 years ago +2
Some cancers have high survival rates especially if the cancer is detected early. 4 years ago +1
Abort the child while it's still a fetus and then donate the $10 million to effective charity. 4 years ago +3
Bees are pretty vital for the world's ecosystems. Human genetic diversity would be hardly damaged if one "race" somehow went extinct. 4 years ago +2
1,172 more comments hidden.

DrObvious has created the following lists:

  • This user doesn't have any lists.