the prosecution is promising to not prosecute you for any slurrs you said, you no longer have any rights as the court will compel you over fear of contempt of court
1 Like
I was going to complain but you know what fair enough you can do that
1 Like
when have you ever said a slur
In the cookie thread
1 Like
he accidently had a screenshot with one in
1 Like
Wait I should let my lawyer answer
1 Like
2 Likes
I was about to say I’m pretty sure I’ve never said a slur irl or in the forum but when I was like 12 I said a slur without knowing it was a slur
Your honor
League of legends
yeah those are def illegal and really scummy but like the rest of the video leading up to that point is just like “this is public info” or “so?”
1 Like
May from the flowers more like May from the flow-slurs
Idk is this anything
4 Likes
GASP
1 Like
I don’t know, I need to ask my lawyer
deadpool & wolverine is good
common deadpool w
that’s actually illegal lol
so the central argument of the Drowning Child essay is approximately:
imagine that you are on your way to work, while wearing an expensive suit. you encounter a young child drowning in a shallow pond. it’s not very deep – you’re not in any danger of double-drowning, or anything like that, you could easily save the child – but it would definitely ruin your expensive suit. you don’t have time to change out of it, since the child is actively in the process of drowning. are you ethically obligated to save the child?
most people say yes – even if the child isn’t anyone you personally know, most people find it intuitive that “literally save someone’s life” is less important than “don’t have to buy a new suit,” and that letting the child drown is wrong even if you aren’t personally responsible for killing them.
where things get tricky is that… you can, pretty straightforwardly, turn “money” into “fewer children dying.” there are children dying of malaria who could have been saved with a malaria net, or if they’d gotten seasonal malaria chemoprevention (or if they’d been vaccinated, but that’s dose-limited enough right now that it’s harder to turn money into fewer children dying). (malaria is obviously not the only relevant cause of child death but it’s ~relatively good for illustrative purposes.) the exact cost to save a life is disputed; in expectation it’s somewhere in the ballpark of $4000, maybe lower maybe higher (see e.g. this writeup).
if you’re obligated to ruin your nice suit to stop a child from drowning, are you not similarly obligated to give all your discretionary income to life-saving charities?
the below paragraph follows straightforwardly from the above but might be ~infohazardous for people who are prone to scrupulosity:
Summary
so, obviously, if you’ve heard that argument and found it even somewhat persuasive, this suggests a relatively straightforward equivalence! spend $5 on an ice cream cone? you just killed one-eight-hundredth of a child, in expectation. walk past your high school’s soccer field and remember how much it cost? well, divide that by 4000, that’s a lot of dead children. and there’s probably nothing you could have done to get those people to donate to malaria nets instead, but you’re the student rep on the board, if there’s any seventeen-year-old who could have done it it was you. add in the fact that you’re now a senior in high school, looking at colleges, and. yeah
3 Likes
No one ever prosecutors sfuff about that but you can’t promise someone a prize that is both random and requires you to buy something
1 Like
just in case could you spoil it
dunno if anybody here fits the bill but i dont wanna make that judgement and be wrong
1 Like
this is a post that would drown a child
How many children have you drowned Geyde