Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Murder, for example (Score 1) 1330

by walshy007 (#47404977) Attached to: U.S. Supreme Court Upholds Religious Objections To Contraception

Nah, I'm just not under the illusion that we are special in any way. The universe doesn't give a shit about whether we survive or not, that we often want to is simply a personal bias, not an inherent truth, and those personal biases can vary..

Whether we survive or not is just a thing that happens, it's not inherently "right" or "wrong". No matter what happens to us the universe keeps turning, doing it's thing.

Perhaps the goal of preventing human extinction is the one arbitrary priority, the one "unicorn in the garden" [orain.org], as a starting point to make atheism practical.

You don't need that assumption to make atheism practical. Atheism is practical because "god" is not a falsifiable concept, this doesn't make it wrong, but it puts it in the realm of other things of that realm like the tooth fairy and santa. Things that even if they so happened by some freaky coincidence to be right there is no possible way to have evidence of it because of the lack of ability of the conjecture to be tested.

Critical rationalism allows atheism to function. Not in a hard "there is no god, for sure" stance, but in the "there is no reason, and can be no reason to prefer the conjecture that there is a god, so I'm going to totally ignore it like all other untestable things" sense.

Comment: Re:Murder, for example (Score 1) 1330

by walshy007 (#47398021) Attached to: U.S. Supreme Court Upholds Religious Objections To Contraception

add the axiom "Humankind ought to continue to exist."

Why? what justification do you have for this?

If you think this goal isn't right, feel free to remove yourself.

Just because someone doesn't think that it is an inherent truth that it is "right" that all people should continue to exist doesn't mean they think that people should not exist

Otherwise, you can continue by answering questions like this: Does the benefit to humankind of not living in fear of being murdered outweigh the benefit to humankind of having the freedom to murder someone?

What people consider to be a benefit or detriment depends entirely on their desired outcomes and priorities, which can be arbitrary. When what is "benefit" is arbitrary so too can be your morals if what is of benefit is your guiding light.

Comment: Re:Logic itself is a human construct (Score 1) 1330

by walshy007 (#47396783) Attached to: U.S. Supreme Court Upholds Religious Objections To Contraception

The main problem I see with people who talk about "morals derived from logic", comes from people not realizing that it all comes down to their own biases and their own preferences.

Sure, the system you've devised might be a reasonable and logical way to achieve the goals you intend.. but why do you have those goals? why are those goals "right"?

It all comes down to an a priori justification of their morals in the end. They just haven't recursively analyzed their own morals enough to realize it yet.

When all morals are effectively arbitrary (as the priorities and values that influence them can be) it is hard to say they are defined by "logic".

Comment: Re:Distinct DNA (Score 1) 1330

by walshy007 (#47374159) Attached to: U.S. Supreme Court Upholds Religious Objections To Contraception

The question is, and or at least definitely should be, are you doing harm to something that can suffer? here's the key issue: Does it have a nervous system, and does that nervous system couple to something sophisticated enough to convert those signals into suffering?

Aside from our own personal biases that lend us toward favouring our own systems, how would you define suffering?

If it is reacting to stimuli that causes it harm, plants, vegetables and many forms of life do that. If you try to not eat anything of that nature you'll quickly find yourself starving.

Why should only harm that can be applied to us or things like us be considered harm?

Comment: Re:Distinct DNA (Score 1) 1330

by walshy007 (#47374145) Attached to: U.S. Supreme Court Upholds Religious Objections To Contraception

They don't care because it happened naturally without interference. Much like how if an old man dies in his sleep naturally people don't tend to care, but if he dies in his sleep with a pillow shoved over his face by a party conscious of what it will do, people do care.

Like how you don't see PETA activists trying to fight off all the violent animal deaths that happen in nature.. because there was no interference.

Comment: Re:A win for freedom (Score 1) 1330

by walshy007 (#47374117) Attached to: U.S. Supreme Court Upholds Religious Objections To Contraception

However, if I needed "little blue pills" and was employed at Hobby Lobby, they would be more than happy to provide them to me. They also see nothing wrong in investing in the contraception companies in their 401K. Apparently, making money off of "godless abortion pills" is perfectly fine religiously.

Wouldn't the abortion pills they're against in this case not count as contraception? I mean.. isn't the point of contraception to stop conception?

The only reason I can see to try to avoid the name "abortion pill" is the social stigma, but that can be worked on. (imitation of kang's voice) "Abortions for all!"

Comment: Why the quadcopter obsession? (Score 1) 30

by walshy007 (#47219791) Attached to: A Quadcopter Development Platform (Video)

Why not just build an RC helicopter sizable enough to do what you want?

You want automation? It can be done on an rc helicopter too.

I just don't see the point of having a bunch of weak motors as opposed to a single strong one with control of thrust via cyclic and collective pitch controls on the blades.

Comment: Re:Just Tack on a Fee (Score 1) 626

by walshy007 (#47070533) Attached to: Driverless Cars Could Cripple Law Enforcement Budgets

The energy required to transport food from farms to houses is at least an order of magnitude less than the energy consumed by an automobile for commuting. Possibly two orders of magnitude. So the only way that growing your own food at home saves energy is if you don't drive.

We have a winner! When you have local production and consumption you tend to not have to drive so much. Also, trucks used for transportation of goods cause pretty much all non-weather related road wear, causing a lot of savings on road maintenance to boot.

That's how the right wing rationalizes their own flavor of totalitarianism, but I don't want to live in a country where the government doesn't let us live the way we want.

I don't see how "we would like this area to be designated for free range humans please" is totalitarian. Unless you consider no smoking zones, no parking areas, speed limits, and all zoning laws at all totalitarian.

Utter chaos isn't necessarily the best solution.

Comment: Re:Just Tack on a Fee (Score 1) 626

by walshy007 (#47054091) Attached to: Driverless Cars Could Cripple Law Enforcement Budgets

If you want to make the land as efficient as possible in growing crops, you need to minimize roof and asphalt area and maximize cropland area.

You're forgetting the labor required to work the farm, unless you're talking about modern farming practices that are very petrol dependent.. in which case so much for 'sustainable'.

If every family household had a few acres, we could all effectively grow our own crops. While not all of our needs would be met, we would reduce our dependence on items transported from far away by a fair margin, reducing energy consumption from transportation.

The small'ish houses rooftops can be lined with solar panels, so the solar energy from that portion can be used also.

Unfortunately, the right wing opposes this, and they use density and height limits to achieve their goal of preventing people from living sustainably.

They use density and height limits to stop people having to live like caged chickens. To some people that is life, others would prefer to be free range humans.

Comment: Re:Just Tack on a Fee (Score 1) 626

by walshy007 (#47053243) Attached to: Driverless Cars Could Cripple Law Enforcement Budgets

That's the opposite of the right wing, which supports road and fuel subsidies and zoning and density limits [baconsrebellion.com] that force people to drive more.

Or.. you know.. get a job closer to home?

I'm not sure having thousands of people crammed per square mile is a great idea.

I think less dense housing enables people to actually do things with land, like, I don't know, grow a small set of crops?

Local production and consumption is a win on energy losses through transportation.

City people often forget that it is the country that feeds them. When you are that sheltered from production you tend to think food just magically appears in shopping centres. Sure, you know that at some point that it came from a farm, but it doesn't cross peoples minds.

Shoving more and more people into dense cities is not sustainable. It seems to be a goal of the left to see how many people we can support even at cost of quality of life. Screw that, Let people live in open areas, and let them have some level of being able to do what they want with their land.

Comment: Re:Is It Objectification...? (Score 1) 81

by walshy007 (#47019821) Attached to: Unlock Your Android Phone With Open Source Wearable NFC

(going straight to the person's value as a sexual object is the definition of objectification)

Actually it has to do with their sense of agency. Agents can affect their surroundings, whereas things simply happen to objects, they are victims unable to affect anything.

In this sense a lot of people self labelling themselves as feminists are objectifying women a lot at times.

Comment: Re:Do not want (Score 1) 81

by walshy007 (#47019777) Attached to: Unlock Your Android Phone With Open Source Wearable NFC

I think slashdot just has higher standards of evidence of racism etc than some other places.

For it to be true it has to be blatent and with very little possibility of error "you know what I mean" doesn't constitute that. There are plenty of other interpretations.

You have to try to not assume malice (or even ignorance) in these things. Come to them from the best possible light they could be from your perspective and goals.

Using a certain style of language can associate people with things that they shouldn't necessarily be associated with. Best to not assume ill will or malice

I think a fair portion of slashdot comes from a pragmatic line of thinking, nobody gives a crap about what race or sex a person is so long as the job gets done and well at that.

We've all encountered oversensitive people before and it can be a right pain in the ass and loss of efficiency trying to deal with them.. there's a tendency to not like enforced inefficiency from above. Things that affirmative action programs and the like can enforce.

"Catch a wave and you're sitting on top of the world." - The Beach Boys

Working...