You'll think this is way off topic, and that's fine.

I just had to check, since the SFPD has made it clear that Sarkeesian reported exactly the threats she said she did, do you acknowledge you're wrong?

I read that news and decided to dig up the first person in the Sarkeesian thread who was saying that.

So... I'm reaching out to you, as one of the people who justified the shitbaggery that happened with that particularly idiotic line of reasoning, in the vain hope that you'll change your mind on exactly the evidence you demanded.

You are absolutely right that those things are detestable. I have no meaningful input to this discussion other than that I hate how marketing consistently misleads people.

I don't care if that comes out pro-apple or anti-apple, but modern marketing is ethically wrong.

Well, the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomy Society is one of the longest running astronomy journals in the world, and, to my knowledge, has never done anything substantial to impugn its reputation. It also has a comparatively large impact factor. All signs that the peer review is considered of good quality.

Why wouldn't it be stable? More gravity means more fusion, not less.
The theory says it's a companion star that goes nova, and then is gradually de-orbitted into the larger gas giant.

Oh, and just now I realize you hadn't read the summary. It's a neutron star inside a star. A neutron star is essentially a block of neutronium(essentially a gigantic neutron only nucleus) with some attached hanger on high energy plasma around.

Just imagine a block of the most dense visible thing in the universe crashing into a star so large you could fit a good chunk of the inner solar system in.

I can't be the only person who'd want to watch that firework display.

Oh my, changing things is complicated and doesn't always work?

No, but seriously, you're wrapping a clear possibility in a blanket of cynical forgone conclusion.

Governments aren't actually interested in no one collecting taxes on their corporations.

Obvious counterpoint to your ideological statement: without taxes all theft is legalized.

The construction of a an idea of theft exists as an artifact of a social system. To pretend that something is "yours" without a legal delineation of ownership is silly.

Obvious counterpoint to your pragmatic statement: details of budgets need to change more rapidly than taxes.

Additionally, combining surpluses and deficits from different programs minimizes overhead.

Whenever I hear the phrase "double taxation" thrown around as a reason to do away with a tax. Because almost universally, it's because you can hide your money from both kinds of tax by playing the middle between the two things that get taxed.

Oh yeah, I totally know how peoples bodies can operate complex mechanical tasks like that without any sort of cognition.

Now a recent study has shown that tasks involving complex numerical cognition lower altruism, but come on. Thinking altruistically and quickly is still thinking.

A. Because it wasn't written as a joke. It was clearly phrased as a meta-statement about the discussion that was going on.
B. Because in that context it's a particularly noxious misapplication of the word "universal"

As long as we're talking specifically about Apple's factories through Foxconn haven't been alleged to have that problem. They've been noted for having awful, dangerous working conditions with low wages and frequent suicides.

So you're conflating actual slavery, which I totally acknowledged exists, with what Foxconn is doing, which is differently problematic.

Because universality is a real philosophical concept and this whole verbal semantic gameplaying doesn't make any sense at all?

It's a basic right, too.

It's like you took the wrong dictionary definition for one word, and then thought that had a definite implication on the totally unrelated concept. This argument comes from such an incorrect place, I can't even consider making some kind of completely pointless yield on the phrasing.

Unfortunately, while the first link impugns the character of Boeing, for quite reasonable reasons, it doesn't actually endorse the specific claim the AC(I assume to be you) made.

Right, and the existence of the unethical factories in the supply chain isn't the problem. It's the unsafe working conditions within those factories. Which is why the distinction against slavery is so important.

I make all sorts of grammatical errors all the time, but that isn't an example. That's called an "object phrase" and it's perfectly fine syntactically and semantically.

Try reading it again.

Seriously?

You can't understand the idea of a right derived from being human? Is that concept too complicated for you? Or what? Do you contest the idea on petulant "you can't know anything" grounds?

Because I gotta say, that makes you seem more like an ethical child than a clever debater, at least to me.