@H
Sanen't
Relays (3)
- wss://nos.lol – read & write
- wss://relay.damus.io – read & write
- wss://relay.ditto.pub – read & write
Recent Notes
nostr:npub1grd6pp385tevd8psx9nxzjd4vutg7pycjj49cs3q8gujpg77sjps4752zz > German Federal Intelligence Service wants to pay Google 500 million euros to set up a cloud system
That's one way of simplifyin...
It's air gapped, they're just paying for the hw and sw stack that google has set up for this service. It doesn't connect to google cloud or the internet at all. Tuta simply don't have this knowledge, but are saying "please give us an insane amount of money to set up an encrypted network drive"
1
500m for a tuta drive instance. Absolutely deranged
3
Probably smarter to make the arrest before you demand passport surrender
https://www.metropoles.com/colunas/grande-angular/flavio-bolsonaro-foi-embora-para-os-eua-aviao-em-voo
https://www.metropoles.com/colunas/grande-angular/flavio-bolsonaro-foi-embora-para-os-eua-aviao-em-voo
1
@JSKitty is this true and if so is it the client or the nip05 that is banned?
1
I think you argue that cultur can define right and wrong doing, while anarchy explains that there are objective rights and wrongs. So independent of the culture.
I hardly think that one can form an a...
> anarchy explains
Yes, because you believe in a specific type of anarchy, you believe in certain things downstream of that root belief. My contention is that natural rights and natural law aren't real.
> those objective morals are a basic logic of our species survival
We have good evidence that within and between small scale hunter-gatherer tribes there has been violence up to and including homicide over access to scarce resources and females. The supposed objective morals are not a basic logic of our species survival. Humanity was extremely small scale and subject to potential extinction for a long time. It was only with the development of agriculture that population began to increase significantly. It was also when people began enslaving one another.
Yes, because you believe in a specific type of anarchy, you believe in certain things downstream of that root belief. My contention is that natural rights and natural law aren't real.
> those objective morals are a basic logic of our species survival
We have good evidence that within and between small scale hunter-gatherer tribes there has been violence up to and including homicide over access to scarce resources and females. The supposed objective morals are not a basic logic of our species survival. Humanity was extremely small scale and subject to potential extinction for a long time. It was only with the development of agriculture that population began to increase significantly. It was also when people began enslaving one another.
To stay on topic, I’ll keep it blunt… yes, it always was and always is immoral to kill peaceful people, no matter what one claims “god” says.
I do not claim to be the arbiter of right and wro...
I believe in the death penalty for murder and that would obviously include me.
1🤙1
Apparently you’ve not comprehended anything I’ve said because your video is not related to what I’ve been saying. I’ve only made the claim it is wrong to initiate violence on peaceful people....
Do you believe that everyone they're commanded to kill deserves it in your moral framework? If not, that's a divergence in beliefs. Once again, in their eyes this is an objectively moral command from God.
Human sacrifice was wrong in *your* moral framework, not theirs. If you had been raised in their culture at the time you would have participated because it was normal.
We can slice this different ways. Some vegans believe it is immoral to eat meat and should be illegal. I eat meat. If it becomes illegal to eat meat, I'm not going to apologise for past meat consumption even if the punishment for future meat consumption is severe
Human sacrifice was wrong in *your* moral framework, not theirs. If you had been raised in their culture at the time you would have participated because it was normal.
We can slice this different ways. Some vegans believe it is immoral to eat meat and should be illegal. I eat meat. If it becomes illegal to eat meat, I'm not going to apologise for past meat consumption even if the punishment for future meat consumption is severe
2
Thank you for explaining. It sounds like your claim is there is no morality, only feelings?
Therefore, human sacrifice by the Aztecs was not wrong in its time, because the general masses felt it was ...
I would use the world believed, rather than felt.
This is a matter of subjective vs objective morality. Between two different religions including closely related ones you will find divergence in beliefs that affect their moral framework. Even among secular ethicists there are divergent moral frameworks.
Between the religions we can see that the morals are subject to their belief in that religion, but to the believers within the religion, the morality is black and white, commanded by God. When there are differences in opinion on these matters, this is how new sects form.
Consider the following and how closely it relates to your moral framework:
This is a matter of subjective vs objective morality. Between two different religions including closely related ones you will find divergence in beliefs that affect their moral framework. Even among secular ethicists there are divergent moral frameworks.
Between the religions we can see that the morals are subject to their belief in that religion, but to the believers within the religion, the morality is black and white, commanded by God. When there are differences in opinion on these matters, this is how new sects form.
Consider the following and how closely it relates to your moral framework:
1
