Ethics & Philosophy

Am I bad for thinking that but this man is destoying our great country. What has happened to my Republican Party. Today Haley said she will vote for Trump. What a wimp that lady is. Perhaps it Helps Biden, even though I am not a fan of his.

Hawking reflected on religion and belief in God in his book The Theory of Everything: The Origin and Fate of the Universe. He wrote: "For centuries, it was believed that disabled people like me were living under a curse that was inflicted by God. Well, I suppose it's possible that I've upset someone up there, but I prefer to think that everything can be explained another way, by the laws of nature.

If you believe in science, like I do, you believe that there are certain laws that are always obeyed. If you like, you can say the laws are the work of God, but that is more a definition of God than a proof of his existence. We are each free to believe what we want and it’s my view that the simplest explanation is there is no God

I have a 58k mile Ford (bought certified pre-owned in the USA at 39k miles) with a persistent and elusive electrical/computer issue that causes frequent breakdowns before it eventually fixes itself and is good to drive again. Of course the issue started cropping up just a thousand miles past the pre-owned warranty.

I've moved 3 times in the past 3 years I've owned it, and have taken it to various mechanics (including twice to Ford directly) at various locations where I've lived. As the cost of work has been adding up I've just stopped taking it in when it breaks down and will wait for it to resolve itself. Other than this strange problem it is in great shape, has been well cared for, and no one would be the wiser that it could break down at any moment.

Now I am moving to a city and will be going car free. I need to sell my car, but letting it go at auction as a problem vehicle for a few grand just hurts too much.

Anyone have any ideas on how I could total it out in a manner that doesn't put my safety both legal and physical at risk? It would be awesome if I could just collect an insurance payout at it's "normal" value (I don't know if insurance folks have a way of finding out if a car with numerous trips to the mechanic is actually fixed or not and how that would play into valuation).

If I'm being completely insane, fair enough. I'm just trying to not take too massive of a loss here. Thanks for any ideas!

I've recently been listening to Stephen Fry's excellent history podcast/miniseries on audible about Victorians, and one thing that is highlighted is the level of behavior that we would currently deem "racist".

I know there is a trend towards "color blind" casting in movies and TV shows, which I generally think of as a good thing. In these color-blind castings they tend to completely ignore that during that time period everyone would have been racist towards a black person or an asian person. I think this might actually be doing a disservice, as due to our natural cognitive bias we may tend to think racism was less prevalent.

Basically, I think that in a period piece, for example set in the 1850s, the characters should be more racist like someone in the 1850s would be. Even if it makes the audience a bit uncomfortable, that is accurate.

edit: I am getting A LOT of responses which essentially amount to "we cant and shouldnt make art PERFECTLY accurate". To be clear, I am not saying that a TV show set in 1850s London should have the EXACT SAME LEVEL of racism in the show that we would see in 1850s London. Im just saying it shouldn't be completely devoid of racism.

edit2
Fairly Persuasive arguments- a few people have commented that having more racism might actually "normalize" racism, which if true would run counter to my entire intent. I dont think this is true, at least according to what I've seen, but if someone could change my mind that it had a risk of increasing racist behavior I would definitely change my view

edit3 This has nothing to do with my view specifically, but I am reminded that I really think there needs to be a bit more about how people used the restroom in period shows. Not that I need to get into scatological specifics, but if people were literally shitting in a corner, I think that is incredibly interesting and sets quite the scene.

Like the title. I am atheist. I never really thought about the usage of “Jesus” as interjection until about an hour ago, when I woke up from a horrible dream. In the dream, I yelled “Jesus” a few times out of shock. On waking up, I thought, should I stop using it in my waking life (because I can’t control what I say in my dreams)? I am curious what fellow atheists think about this? Have you consciously stopped using such interjections? What do you use instead?

So I made a post asking them just for fun to see the replies, why they believe in jesus and how they know that jesus was in fact god.

Im not even kidding the very first answer was

“Flat Earth”

I can’t 😂 These people are so out of reality it’s crazy.

i’m an onlyfans creator visiting the US for vacation, i’m worried telling them my job (they will ask) will get me detained or worse, denied entry because it’s happened to others.

what’s something else i can tell them that won’t make me look suspicious

Here are 10 signs that something might be a cult:

1. Absolute authoritarianism without accountability: A single leader is viewed as infallible and above criticism. There is no tolerance for dissent or questioning of the leader's pronouncements.

2. Zero tolerance for criticism or questions: Leaders or the group are not open to questions or challenges to their ideology. Disagreement is seen as betrayal.

3. Lack of meaningful financial disclosure regarding budget: The group is secretive about how it spends money. Members may be expected to tithe a significant portion of their income or pressured to donate money or property.

4. Unreasonable fears about the outside world that often involve evil conspiracies and persecutions: The group teaches that the outside world is evil, dangerous, or controlled by some dark conspiracy. Members are isolated from friends and family who are not in the group.

5. A belief that former followers are always wrong for leaving and there is never a legitimate reason for anyone else to leave: The group teaches that people who leave are deceived, weak, or evil. Members may be pressured to cut ties with anyone who leaves the group.

6. Abuse of members: Members may be subjected to physical, emotional, or sexual abuse. They may be deprived of food, sleep, or medical care.

7. Records, books, articles, or programs documenting the abuses of the leader or group: If some publications or documentaries detail the history of abuse by the group or leader, this is a huge red flag.

8. Followers feel they are never able to be “good enough” The group may have a complex system of rules and regulations that members are expected to follow perfectly. Members are constantly monitored and criticized for even minor infractions.

9. A belief that the leader is right at all times: The leader is viewed as an infallible prophet or spiritual teacher. Their pronouncements are taken as absolute truth, regardless of evidence or logic.

10. Social isolation: The group encourages or enforces isolation from friends and family who are not in the group. Members may be pressured to live in communal housing or give up their jobs and hobbies

Roommates took my tv and are using it in the living room. Need it disabled or highly undesirable to use but I don’t want them to know it was intentional. It’s a Samsung smart tv. Any ideas?

You can look at the survey results here in this article from Pew, they went into detail on the beliefs of their subjects. I am trying to understand the reasoning or secular argument behind the results. If anyone is against abortion on here or is familiar with the stance that could explain I’d appreciate it. Thanks.

Edit: for those who are going to comment something like “atheists just don’t believe in a god, we have nothing else in common” please don’t waste my time, I know this and I am looking for actual practical, non-religious reasons that an atheist would have against abortion being legal.

I’m not a choice feminists—I’d probably call myself a radical feminist or Marxist feminist. I’m an engineer, and anticapitalist… want kids, going to get married, might stay home for a few years… my relationship is NOT traditional and we do not adhere to any strict gender roles. I don’t judge people who want to stay home with kids, or people who want to develop their career and their passions, or people who want it all! that’s me… I like my career and I also consider family and relationships to be the most important things in life. I only “judge” if the root reason is an adherence to strict required gender roles and/or capitalism with a lack of empathy for how the system can hurt others….

So… that gets me to my point. I’ve noticed this trend lately.. of a few women I went to school with. I knew these people to be some of THE most ambitious people I went to school with… top grades, founders of companies, top ranking employees. Then a few years later, they’ve gone full tradwife. Saying how they wish they never went to school, how much more valuable children are than their career, how they owe it all to their husbands. They take his last name… they talk about how they cook meals for him, how he’s the provider, how much more fulfilled they are now….

It’s kind of jarring. I’ve seen it happen to 3-4 people I know in the last YEAR. I have my own theories on why this is and why this happens but it’s also somewhat surprising. Has anyone else noticed this trend? Have thoughts?

At every apartment I've rented, the landlord can charge the tenant for any damage or uncleanliness that they find. They don't need to provide any evidence or proof that the tenant was responsible for the damage. In order for the tenant to not owe the landlord money for this, the tenant needs to have noticed the damage/uncleanliness within the first few days of moving in and reported it to the landlord.

I think this is unfair, because it is unrealistic for a tenant to notice every minuscule damage or uncleanliness within the first few days. For example, most people probably wouldn't immediately notice dust on top of the fridge, but a landlord could charge a tenant for leaving dust on top of the fridge. Many people wouldn't immediately notice a broken blind, but a landlord can charge for this. Most people wouldn't immediately notice a small dent or scratch on the side of an appliance, but a landlord can charge for this.

I think what's more fair is requiring the landlord to prove the previous condition of anything they want to charge for. If they want to charge for dust on top of the fridge, they need a picture showing there was no dust when the tenant moved in. If they want to charge for a broken blind, they need a picture showing that all the blinds are not broken, et cetera.

This would not only protect tenants from shitty landlords, it would protect landlords from shitty tenants. For example, a tenant could report "damaged blinds" seeing that two of them were broken, and they could break 10 more and pretend the original report of "damaged blinds" was referring to 12 broken blinds rather than 2.

Supposing that landlords are required to provide pictures/video proving previous condition - these must be date-verifiable so that the landlord cannot use pictures from previous tenancies.

Change my view!

So often you'd hear about the US wanting to maintain a rule-based order, and they use that justification to attack their adversaries like China, Russia, Iran, etc. They want China to respect international maritime movement, Russia to respect international boundaries, or Iran to stop developing their WMDs. However, instead of joining the ICC, they passed the , which allows the US to invade the Netherlands should the ICC charge an American official. I find this wholly inconsistent with this basis of wanting a world built on ruled-based order.

The ICC is set up to prosecute individuals who are guilty of war crimes AND whose countries are unable or unwilling to investigate/prosecute them. Since the US has a strong independent judicial system that is capable of going and willing to go after officials that are guilty of war crimes (at least it should), the US shouldn't be worried about getting charged. So in my opinion if the US is serious about maintaining a rule-based order, they should recognise the ICC.