Iudicious

I may be coming a little late to the game here. The thing to keep in mind is that "debate" is a very broad term. I was captain of my debate team in high school, and was on the team for four years, and then chaperoned and judged at tournaments for two years after graduation. High school and college debate are actually very similar, and one usually leads into the other for the top debaters at the high school level. A lot of people outside of the debate team scene don't really have a solid idea of what goes on in national level debate. There's a lot of different events, and each emphasize different aspects of debate. Some events, such as the one shown in the first video, emphasize quantity of information, and ability to rebuke the opponent's points. Other events focus primarily on the quality of a person's speech - such that even if one side has a clearly superior argument, if they cannot present it well, they will still lose (this is, of course, necessary: with a lot of topics - arguably most topics - there's one side that very clearly has a lot more evidence to support it). Some events that fall under the "debate" team are more about dramatic acting, comedic acting, or recitation of prose and pre-written speeches. Others focus on coming up with speeches on the spot, or challenging debaters to be prepared to make an argument on a topic that they don't know beforehand (i.e. they find out about it 10 minutes before going in to give their speech). Keep in mind, this is competitive debate. You cannot judge these people on who is right and who is wrong. I can't think of a single topic off the top of my head where both sides have just about equal footing in terms of evidence. These people aren't arguing to prove the other wrong. They're honing their speaking, debating, argumentation, and information collection skills. Who is right and who is wrong doesn't matter here. If it did, it wouldn't be competitive. The whole point is to focus on the skills involved in speaking publicly, not on being right or being wrong. So yeah, it may look weird from the outside. But every event focuses on different skills, and sometimes those skills, when taken alone and to the extreme, can present in a kinda... weird way. I also don't think that there's an issue with relativism being encouraged by debate. Honestly, most of the topics that are discussed in college debate don't have an answer that we can be absolutely, positively sure about. When it comes to policies or modern issues, it's rarely the case that things are so utterly simple that you can immediately identify the right course of action. This is not to say that there is no right course of action or right belief - simply that in many of the topics being debated, it's not exactly easy to identify which one is right and which one is wrong. The whole idea of high school and college level debate is to teach people how to argue ideas in a public fashion - and if you can argue convincingly for something that you don't even believe in, you sure as hell can argue for something that you do.

Cliveandrews seems 100% sure about a lot of things, especially about things that he knows that doctors do not. Cliveandrews, do you perhaps have a medical degree that would make you privy to some knowledge that these foot specialists who you have apparently seen - who have spent many years of their lives studying medicine, the human body, and feet - would, somehow, not have? What makes you think that the knowledge you've obtained through some as yet unknown means is more correct than the knowledge these doctors possess? Are you a medical doctor specializing in feet? I'm just curious why you're so sure that (apparently) several doctors are wrong about what's wrong with you. Usually one sees a doctor because the doctor knows more than ones' self. If this is not the case here, and you would doubt the doctors' conclusions in the first place... why on earth did you see other doctors?

I think you identified something somewhat important above: is having sex outside of a relationship a self-sacrifice for you? Is doing so hurting your self esteem? It doesn't necessarily have to, but it could. Is doing so keeping you from pursuing a more gratifying relationship? I'm personally not interested in a relationship at the moment. I just came out of one. So casual sex makes great sense to me right now, whether Rand said it was a good idea or not. But if I were specifically interested in pursuing a long term relationship, casual sex could perhaps hurt that goal (though it doesn't necessarily have to), and therefore could perhaps be a self sacrifice.

A lot of it comes down to opportunities. A large part of doing well - in college, before college, after college - from my experience seems to be being able to find opportunities for yourself. All of the black classmates and friends I've had I've never seen work any less hard than my white classmates and friends - what I have seen is them getting fewer opportunities. Considering their work ethic with regards to other things, I doubt that that's for want of trying. So, for example, a lot of my friends have ended up in pretty decent internships over the years while in college. I've seen much less of a trend for that among the black students I've been friends with. Fewer connections - especially fewer family connections - and, I think, a subtle preference for white people are both large parts of that. A few studies have pointed to a statistical backing to this anecdotal trend. Forbes reported on a pretty damning trend now to long ago: http://www.forbes.com/sites/susanadams/2014/06/27/white-high-school-drop-outs-are-as-likely-to-land-jobs-as-black-college-students/ Similar stats here: http://www.nationaljournal.com/next-america/education/african-americans-with-college-degrees-are-twice-as-likely-to-be-unemployed-as-other-graduates-20140527 And here: http://college.usatoday.com/2014/05/29/study-african-american-college-grads-face-disproportionately-high-unemployment-rates/ I can only speculate the answer for a lot of your questions. Despite growing up in some predominantly black situations, I'm now around a lot more white people than black. I certainly wouldn't chalk all of the problem up to racism. I know a lot of the black kids I've known in college keep to themselves a lot more than I do and many of my white friends do. From what I've been told and what I've seen, I imagine that to be the result of previous experiences and upbringing. Certainly, a prevailing culture in the black community has had an effect on the success of black students - but that prevailing culture exists for a reason, and it's not the only cause of these problems. I think we tend to forget that we really aren't that far removed from widespread racism, and even slavery. Most white people are born into families with a little bit of money. As a white person, you are far more likely to grow up with opportunities than a black person. This isn't even necessarily a racism thing - it could very well be a math thing. Family money simply hasn't had the time to build up in black communities, because families have only had a few generations to build up wealth, whereas most white people come from many, many generations that have had the time and opportunity to build up money and establish roots. But in my experience, this is also a certain, underlying mindset that a lot of people still have - especially people who grew up in predominantly white communities and didn't have the opportunity to be exposed to black people and their communities - that causes them to react differently to black people than they would white people. The fact that a white person crossing the stress to avoid a black person is still a common cultural trope kinda speaks to this fact.

Except there's also an abundance of statistical evidence indicating that racism, of some sort, is alive and well in the United States. Because you're relying exclusively on anecdotal evidence. Beyond that, you've made several specific anecdotal claims that I, and I'm sure others, have heard regularly in other contexts, which suggests that you may not actually have anecdotal evidence, you just think you do. The fact that you've consistently avoided laying out a specific example to back up your notions indicates to me - someone who has given specific examples - that perhaps you don't have any specific instances of anecdotal evidence backing up your claim. It is not at all uncommon for a person to learn about something or hear about something or adopt a notion from their parents or some other place where it's commonly expressed, and then later - perhaps after years of holding that notion or mindset - claim that the notion or mindset is based on personal experience, when it's not - and they don't even know it! This is an altogether too common error in human memory, and the best way to counter it in a discussion is to ask for a specific example. The fact that you can't seem to provide one indicates to me that this is the case for you: you don't have any specific examples, you just think you do, because you've held this mindset for so long.

Not really in mine. From your post, it seems to me that you have a pretty narrow experience of what racism is and how it works. I don't mean that as an insult or criticism - just that you might not be aware of what kinds of racism exist and how and where it occurs. Let me give an example: I have a friend who, if she sees a pair of white guys walking down the sidewalk towards her, she won't react in any way. If she sees a pair of black guys walking down the sidewalk towards her, she'll get visibly nervous, she'll move out of the way by a pretty significant margin, she'll talk in a more hushed voice - even if she's not saying anything racist - and so on. Another example: a cop sees me, a white guy, with weed. He gives me a warning. Same cop sees a black guy with weed, he arrests him. There's no difference in the law here: the difference was simply a subtle shift in mindset. The cop saw me, and his first assumption was simply that I was some harmless white kid trying out weed, no biggie. When he saw the black guy, his first assumption was that the black guy had weed and was therefore dangerous, likely part of a gang. These aren't huge, flashing, banners proclaiming "RACISM!". These are subtle mindsets that affect the way we interact with people of different races. It affects the way we hire people, it affects the way we treat people, it affects the way we pay people, it affects out expectations of people, it affects the way we reward people, it affects the way we talk to and about people. Nothing about it is huge or explicit, and rarely is it even intentional: they're subtle mindsets that many people learn while growing up, usually as a result of having parents with similar mindsets. As I said before - we are not far removed from a time of explicit, widespread racism, and it still has an effect on the mindsets that we have today. Most people are not explicit racists. Most people, when it comes to big decisions, can contain their racism. But, unfortunately, most people in the United States also have these subtle mindsets. I grew up with explicitly racist parents, and for a long time I had a similar, subtle mindset of racism. It took explicit effort on my part to curb the assumptions that I made of people on a regular basis. Are you sure? Did you look at the numbers that management used to determine who got promoted? Did you monitor those employee's work on a regular basis? Question: if a white guy with obviously inferior job performance had been promoted... would you have even noticed? Considering that it happens all the time in just about every workplace that people with inferior performance (from the perspective of employees on the same level), regardless of race, get promoted, I highly doubt that you would. Were you raising concerns about management, or about black management? Because I'd stonewall you all the way if you were raising concerns specifically about black management. And yet I hear white people bitch and moan on a regular basis about black privilege. How often do you see black people playing the "race card"? Can you give some examples where such a thing has been done successfully? This is the kind of thing that I see often complained about by white people, but very rarely backed up. When, where, and how have you seen the "race card" played, and by whom? Was it in a situation where it was actually inappropriate to bring up race? If you can come up with an example, do you think that the person played the "race card" as a result of their being black or as a result of black culture... or simply as a result of them being a shitty person, irrespective of race? The reason why Eiuol would ask for specific examples, I imagine, is that it's not uncommon for a person to come up with a notion of a thing from hearing about it, rather than from personal experiences, and then later on thinking (entirely truthfully in their own mind) that this notion was based on personal experience. It's a pretty common phenomenon, stemming from the simple fact that humans have highly fallible memories. When some notion is established in our mind - for example, from childhood exposure to the mindset of one's own parents - a good deal of time in the past, it saves memory, space and thought to just assume that it's based on personal experience than to remember that you picked up on that idea from a specific place. If you can't come up with specific examples of some notion you have, I'd be curious why you have that notion at all - you can say all you want that it comes from a "lifetime of experience" or whatnot, but if you can't come up with a single specific experience to give as an example, how can even you suggest that the notion has a logical or even anecdotal basis in your mind? Was there no such occurrence in your past of significant enough importance that you can remember it? Because if not, I don't really see what you have to base your ideas on. Thank you for pointing this out and explaining it. This is more or less the point that I had above: a lot of what we see in terms of racism now is the result of subtle underlying mindsets, not explicit, out-of-the-way, racism.

I'm curious how many of the people who say that racism is perpetuated primarily among blacks actually have any significant amount of experience in black culture. Lol, what? How does having a black president suddenly make the existence of racism an extraordinary claim? Consider the demographics in the United States. It would be quite easy for a black president to get elected while still having a disproportionately white representation in offices of power, and just as easy for there to be significant institutional racism. Just because a majority vote elected a black president doesn't mean racism doesn't exist or that it's an extraordinary claim to make. Honestly, it speaks to the efficacy of our electoral system that in spite of the existence of racism we still elect a black president. Holy shit. I'm really curious where you get such an ass backwards view of the world from. I've lived around black people all my life - the areas I've lived in and gone to school often times have been predominantly black. I've never heard one "bitch and moan" about "not getting a break" or "getting beat down by the white man." I've seen them work just as hard as many of my white friends though, and end up half as far. I've seen them get arrested and get in trouble for possessing minute amounts of drugs while I've walked scott-free in the same situation. I know that I get pulled over for going 20 over the speed limit, the cop will give me a stern talking to - because that's what's happened before - while some blacks I've known won't pass the speed limit because a fine would be the least of their problems if an officer pulled them over. I've heard white people say the most racist things in the presence of other white people, without any awareness of what they were saying, and have everyone around them agree with them. I've been chastised before for pointing out that someone was making a blatantly racist comment in front of a black person. I'm having a hard time seeing where you're getting your view from here. Even a cursory google search of "racism study" or "racism america study" or even "race in america study" or similar terms brings up nothing but support for the notion that racism and racial inequality are alive and well in America. A broad search of any of the research databases my university has access to brings up similar results: nothing but support for the idea that racism exists and affects minorities significantly. The only way I can conceptualize you having such an ass-backwards view of race is that you've never actually spent more than five minutes talking to a black person, and haven't tried to achieve an understanding of racism on your own. ____________________ I'd say that racism is a pretty big deal today, in a multitude of ways. Like many issues, it is not a simple black-white issue: it affects everyone in a variety of ways. Human beings generalize - I'm inclined to think that doing so is part of our nature. And unfortunately, we are not very far removed from a time when it was commonplace to assume blacks and non-whites in general to be lesser. My parents grew up fearful of and prejudiced towards black people, and my grandparents were around before the civil rights movement came into swing, and I know a lot of other people with similar families. I think a lot of people today are raised, not with an outright hatred of blacks and minorities, but with broad misconceptions and poor generalizations of who black people are and how they act. I think those misconceptions and generalizations cause many people to act in ways that they may not even be aware are racist - they may prefer the company of white people, they may actively avoid blacks, and, given the appropriate situation, they may assume the guilt of a black person over the guilt of a white person. I'm sure similar misconceptions and generalizations work in the reverse as well: I know that there are quite a few black people who were raised to be fearful or distrusting of white people, and for good reason, given the environment their parents grew up in. That kind of distrust is harmful to both blacks and whites, minorities and non-minorities. I'm also sure that the situation has improved for blacks and minorities significantly. None of that means that racism doesn't exist in America, or that it's confined to black communities, and I don't think that we can rightfully ignore the evidence that continues to crop up suggesting that racism is still a problem in America. Growing up where I have and seeing what I have, as a white person, I'd be downright distrustful of anyone who suggested that racism wasn't an issue in America. Because for me, that person would have to be dangerously ignorant or dangerously dishonest to express such a view.

I dunno, but sure as hell is fun. !

Christ, so now what I find funny isn't up to me anymore? Do we have a list of Objectivism-safe comedians and topics of humor, nelli?

That's Nicky for you, apparently. Eiuol said: I agree. However, it makes sense in the context that we're treating actions as immoral if they don't offer a benefit of some kind to the individual committing the action. The issue is that, from an Objectivist point of view, the only role of the government is to defend individual rights. If the animal has no rights, then the government has no place to be taking the animal from an individual, especially if we view all animals as purely property (a practice I highly question based on the demonstrated intelligence of many animals).

I sure hope that we don't need an Objectivist definition of "funny." It's starting to seem like someone needs to write a dictionary of common terms that have different meanings in Objectivism. Is there something inherently wrong with the definition of "funny" being "that which makes one laugh"?

How and why is it a consideration of justice? Justice typically deals with the breach of a person's rights. Does the animal have rights that could, in this case, be breached? If so, how do you justify the next paragraph: If the abuse of animals is a matter of justice, then by what means does adding a component of material compensation now make it okay to abuse the animals? I'm not trying to get a point across here as yet, I'm just not seeing how this sort of logic works. Typically I consider matters of justice to be irrespective of a component of material compensation - a breach of someone's rights is a breach of someone's rights, regardless of if you were compensated for breaching that person's rights or not. I've always understood justice to be properly focused on correcting a breach of someone's rights, so I'm not seeing how animal abuse could fall under the purview of justice and also be made entirely okay just by providing material compensation to the person conducting the abuse.

It has been my experience that older students were more likely to be more interesting and less "idiotic" as you put it. But it has not been my experience that the majority of college students are the way you describe. I'm sure there are plenty who are, but I've met a pretty wide range of people in my time in college and university. I do, however, try to cast a wide net - I don't stick to one single social group.

It doesn't have to be, but referring to it as such made the question more clear in my mind. I was trying to ascertain specifically where the ethical issue of treating animals "inhumanely" arises from. Is it okay, broadly, to torture an animal for whatever reason suits you? If there is value to be gained from the torturing of an animal, is it then okay? The consensus seems, so far, to be that if there is no value to be gained from doing it, it's not self serving and therefore not ethical to do it. I was trying to ascertain whether the immorality of treating an animal "inhumanely" arises solely from the fact that nothing is gained from it (unless there is something to be gained from it, in which case it is moral), or if there is more to it than that. The question arose at least partially from the assertion that has been made at least once in this thread (but I'm not sure if by you) that animals have a right to not be treated inhumanely, and I'm mostly probing for where exactly that right would arise from. You haven't. I'm sorry that I came off confrontational in the way I responded. That was entirely my bad.

Yes. Some of them multiple times. Why is it relevant? May I not think outside of a few books I read? Did you read the rest of my post? Yes, an unethical thing to do is not worthwhile for a person to do. But things that are not worthwhile for a person to do can be made worthwhile, and thereby ethical, whereas some things can be unethical in such a way that they can never be made worthwhile simply by material/monetary compensation. That is the distinction I made, and yes, I do think it is a worthwhile distinction.

JASKN, your view of university is decidedly and disappointingly narrow, lol Sure, I would imagine there's more adults being idiots on a college campus than in pretty much anywhere in the (modern, free) world, but that by no means characterizes the majority of people. Some of the most interesting, mature, intelligent, ambitious, and capable people I've met, I've met during my (ongoing) college career. Though, I would say, I've had more luck meeting such people at my former community college - there was a greater proportion of older people there than elsewhere, and some of the adults who had decided to return to college had some of the most fascinating and enlightening stories and experiences I've heard. I would comment on the OP, but it seems that other posters here have pretty much helped him with his problem already.

Eh, I feel there's a worthwhile distinction to be made. An action that is simply not worthwhile to a person could be made to be worthwhile with sufficient material incentive. But some ethical quandaries, such as the breaching of rights, cannot be made ethical just by increasing monetary compensation. This is why the distinction is important: are we simply condemning the action because there's no rational profit yet to be made in the torture, or is there a yet deeper ethical issue involved?

Eamon Arasbard said: The issue being, from where does that right extend? If we can't draw a meaningful biological/neurological distinction, than it can't extend from there. If we define our rights as extending from the fact of living in a society with one another and necessarily having to deal with each other in a specific way, and from the fact that we ourselves are capable of respecting each others' rights, there's also no basis upon which to give an animal such rights. Do you think that it's immoral to treat an animal inhumanely? As Danneskjold pointed out, such a belief doesn't necessarily have to extend from a belief in any sort of right for animals. However, a belief in rights for animals necessarily implies at least some component of law, which you seem to be unsure of. Dormin11 said: Put it another way: should we ethically condemn such treatment? If we don't assume that the animal has rights, then is it possible at all to ethically condemn such actions? Specifically, is it possible to ethically condemn such actions purely on the basis of those actions being unethical, and not on the basis of them not being worthwhile for an individual?

If none of the alternatives are falsifiable, than do they make any notable difference in the way we treat reality? It doesn't make things any less "real" - even if we all live in some computer simulation, everything still must be treated in exactly the same way that we would have treated it otherwise. I suppose you could call it pragmatic insofar as we can't meaningfully treat our observations and knowledge thereof as pertaining to anything other than what we can possibly observe and know. Assuming that reality is just one big simulation, again, has anything changed? We can't change our means of observing things in order to accommodate that metaphysical idea, or any other conception of what reality "really" is. The only meaningful thing we can say about the fundamental framework of reality is that it exists (existence exists) and that certain axioms apply as a result of it (identity, et cetera), and that certain conclusions can be drawn logically from those axiom. Saying that reality is fundamentally a simulation, or that it's all an illusion, or some other such thing, doesn't change anything. It neither adds nor subtracts meaningfulness or usefulness from the knowledge we obtain from reality. The way we observe things and the way we form knowledge, as a result, can't account for such ideas, because such ideas are fundamentally unaccountable. I don't really think that "pragmatic" is the right term here. We form knowledge about reality in the only way that we are capable of doing so. That's not really pragmatic if there's no other possible option. I'm curious what "fringe" areas of science you think such ideas apply to or have any useful context in. Could you elaborate?

The show caters to people who are politically to the left. Gonna have to agree with Nicky here - doesn't mean Jon Stewart isn't funny. It also doesn't mean that he doesn't make some salient points. Not really seeing what your issue with this is here. I'm not saying Israel's aggression is unjustified, but there's certainly an argument to be made that there's been a lot of unnecessary civilian casualties. Stewart was making a point that a lot of people have made in response to Israel's warnings to residents of Gaza - there really is nowhere safe to be in Gaza right now. Citizens who evacuate to hospitals and schools have seen shelling all the same. So you're saying that Jon Stewart was selectively deciding what to include in his (short) segment, based on what would make his point most powerfully and provide the most laughs? Huh. I wonder why he would do such a thing. Maybe you missed it. The Daily Show has never aspired to be a news program. They're not a news program, they have never claimed to be a news program. The Daily Show is specifically crafted to do three things, in this order: 1. Make people laugh 2. Parody the awful, awful pundits that are actually serious about what they do, and come off ten times worse than the guy who's just joking about it 3. Pander to their audience, i.e. politically left people. Your criticism relies on Jon Stewart having any obligation, or even intention, to supply accurate news. The guy has a segment that lasts less than thirty minutes - he couldn't provide accurate news if he tried. So he doesn't. Instead he makes people laugh, and offers a voice that is a bit different from the more commonly conservative and centrist pundits on television. You don't have to agree with him on everything, I certainly don't, but your criticism is entirely unfounded. It's like you forgot that you were watching the goddamn comedy channel.

See my above post with regards to what is and is not "uniquely human" biologically/neurologically. As I said before, I'm not really expressing an opinion here on animal rights. It's an interesting discussion, but one I'm not interested in having. I just responded to that person's specific arguments, and offered some knowledge that I've picked up in my biological education. Sorry.

Crows are one of the most interesting species in terms of intelligence, to me. Study after study has shown that they can learn within a single lifetime how to do manipulate tools and communicate basic ideas - and pass that knowledge on. They've been seen in nature to use and manipulate sticks and form hooks or other tools in order to retrieve food, and have even experimentally been seen to drop items into water filled tubes in order to raise the water level and get at food within the tube. Some species of crow use bait to capture fish. Crows have been shown to hide and store food for extended periods of time, have a memory system comparable to human memory (which is referred to as "episodic memory"), and have even been seen to participate in recreation and recognize facial features to distinguish between different animals of the same species, including humans. They have a basic reasoning ability that rivals young humans. They're not the only animals to have achieved such feats of intelligence, which brings up a pretty huge question about what, exactly, gives humans "rights" and makes all other animals not have them, other than the fact that it's just convenient for us to think animals don't have rights and we do. I think your latter criteria is a pretty huge point here. "Rights" are meaningless if no one uses them. I've heard of punishment and tribal "rules" among certain animals, which certainly indicates a basis of morality. The issue, of course, is how do we respond to that? Other animals have no great reason to respect human rights. Since we're in the position of power here, it brings up the question - even if animals have all the biological/neurological criteria necessary to have "rights", why should we as humans respect their rights if they aren't capable of respecting our's? We're capable of rudimentary communication with primates (sign language has been especially effective), but that's hardly enough to build a mutual philosophical system off of. Just food for thought.

Regardless of your opinion re: animal capturing, animal abuse, and animal rights, you're making some pretty iffy arguments here. None of the things you listed would make you happy were you captured. Assuming that the animal is capable of being depressed - which, in the case of dolphins and many other captive animals that are used for amusement is entirely true - then it's pretty safe to assume that none of the things you just listed would keep the animal happy. Many captive animals used for amusement are significantly smarter than cats or dogs, and you can pretty readily tell that dogs, at least, can get depressed when in too confined of a setting (this, of course, depends on the breed of dog - some, like my shih-tzu, couldn't be happier than if they have a comfy home and an occasional walk, while others desperately need to be outdoors to run around on a regular basis in order to be happy). Again, this is an entirely non-sensical argument. Assuming that the animal is capable of being depressed or unhappy, which we have already established that it is, one can pretty safely say that making an animal's body parts useless is not something that will make that animal happy. If you were put in captivity, given food and kept safe from predators, we could remove your arms and legs. You wouldn't need them, after all - you're fed, bathed, et cetera, by your caretakers, so there's no cause for concern. Right? There is still argument to be had whether animals have rights or not. I'm at odds with most Objectivists on this point. But whether or not they do is pretty irrelevant to your specific arguments. Human brains are not, as we like to assume, so significantly more complex than the brains of other animals such that we can't find common ground. The common ground is actually pretty significant. Animals are capable of depression, they're capable of being happy or unhappy or a wide variety of other emotions, they're capable of basic reasoning, some animals, especially some larger mammals and some bird species, are capable of concept formation and basic abstract reasoning. They're not on the same level as humans, but much of the reasoning that applies to humans and human happiness also applies to animals and animal happiness. If you cause significant bodily harm to an animal, if you keep it pinned up in a space too small for it, if you keep it from exercising itself in the various ways that keep animals in the wild happy, it will, undoubtedly, become unhappy and depressed. That's not really hard to figure out. So yes, of course the animals you are referencing would have reason to voice complaint, if they could. The only question is, do you give a shit whether or not the animals are suffering? Again, I'm at odds with most Objectivists on this point, so I won't voice my personal opinion here - but most Objectivists would likely say that the animals have no rights, so you do not, necessarily, have to give a shit that you're inflicting direct, intentional harm upon them.

I'm glad you worked so hard to come up with an in-depth, meaningful response to an important and complex discussion.

And yet again Eiuol says what I'm thinking more eloquently and concisely than I ever could.