"I'd kill every last monkey, gorilla, and featherless chicken to save even one human life"
"No, I wouldn't support a lockdown. Or a mask mandate. Or preventative healthcare. But I would support destroying vital ecology all of us ultimately depend upon."
"A lockdown is too dystopian but we need to go take vengeance on the Chinese barbarians using the full might of our military"
Blessed site. Thank you @WhyEssEff and @DashEightMate + @eduardog3000 (do I remember that from release notes?) + everyone else who helped build things.
:jazz-ecstacy::jazz-passion:
the life of every ape is worth more than Matt Walsh, even the pet chimps who eat peoples' hands and genitals
“This uploader has not made this available in your country”
:brak: FUCK I HAVE TO WATCH THIS
Oh my god what kind of rabbit hole did you lead me down. this is fake right? right?
Yeah, how much do you value human life? How devoted are you to pacifism? How many homeless people do you go out of your way to serve? Oh, so you're pretending to be a humanist as an excuse to continue to destroy the planet and it's other inhabitants? Could you at least come up with your own quote and not steal one from Penn Gillette? No, that's asking too much? Okay, have a nice day.
None. Let’s not do trolly problems for other sentient animals lol
A pair of elephants would absolutely win in a fight. what is a dozen and a half pigeons going to do to 2 giant tanks? easy. next question
Still vegan, still choosing greater number of other animals.
I get the point, I’m just reiterating lol
A barrel of monkeys is a cheap plastic child's toy, so you made the right choice.
Prolly around 7 monks per human or so? Funny to imagine such a trolly problem happening in real life. 7 monks and 1 human are each hanging off opposite edges of a building; you only have time to save one set.
If you picture that the human being is screaming in terrified fear for help I think it does. Picture the scenario in all its emotionally difficult reality, with the sounds and emotions involved.
I think you could increase it to 30 in that scenario and it would still be difficult.
In a clinical situation where you're just pressing one of two buttons and there's no emotion and no screaming or fall or anything like that? Changes completely and the individual involved might make a more rational decision based on numbers and weighing it up alone. But if you place them on top of a building with all the horror of the above pictured scenario I think it's absolutely fair to say you're going to see people struggle at 7, even some larger numbers. The screaming human is going to get a bigger emotional reaction from the rescuer.
Maybe you should reexamine why you feel that a human's life is inherently at least 70 times as valuable as the life of our closest relatives.
If your response is "we're smarter though" then I guess you'd support killing 70 mentally disabled humans if it would save the life of one perfectly fit human which is pretty fuckin :yikes:
Nope, either your reading comprehension needs work or you are being disingenuous.
The point is that "I am smarter than you therefore you deserve to live less than I do" is just straight up reactionary.
Funny how the person I was talking to never said "Actually I think monkeys are 70 times less valuable than humans because xyz." Because I hit the nail on the head, so they had to deflect. You see, there actually is no good reason that a person can give in favor of this argument, so the fact that I already dismantled the only one that sometimes sounds reasonable if you're a eugenicist, they just had to give up in order to avoid the cognitive dissonance which would come from thinking about it.
Ah, you're right. Got your account mixed up with the other one here.
I just didn’t want to have a serious discussion with someone who thinks there’s an equivalence between mentally disabled humans and fucking bonobos.
Good thing no one said anything like that. You just don't have a good reason for what you said, so you're now looking for any way to avoid having to justify it.
A lot of them are pretty cringe. Can I verify political ideology first? No bonobo has ever called me a slur.
Ahhh I see. I misunderstood you.
Difficult one. I understand and agree with the moral arguments that I know someone is going to make any second now, but still think that I personally would struggle with the decision despite believing the ethics arguments. Emotions will take over.
EDIT: Could also change if I'd bonded with any of the monkeys though. Weird
The emotional connection is the biggest factor. Very easy to prioritize whichever creature you’ve bonded with.
Most people would choose their dog’s or cat’s life over a random stranger and that’s fine.
I'm with you. I don't think it's like a equivalent exchange with 7 monkeys, like that's "worth" more than 1 human I guess (how do you value life), but I'd still definitely go with the human. Feel like I share a closer connection/duty to save my own species than others.
Meanwhile 70 screaming people to one 1 monkey makes sense to me. Basically if either side had more, I would probably(?) choose that.
You should spend some time at the primates section of your local zoo when it reopens if it doesn’t suck.
Yep my partner’s monk (or really any vertebrae) to human ratio would be 1.
Who would win in a fight, MattWalshBlog or literally every ape in the world?
EDIT: The apes. The apes would win.
that's alwas been my stance but I always think or dogs/cats, apes are like my cousins, I certainly wouldn't kill every ape to save Matt Walsh
if a supervillain ever rigs up a guy to explode unless every ape on Earth is shot in the head we know to call Matt Walsh
