CarbonIceDragon

Probably yes, however, I consider a person under such conditions to not truly be sound of mind, as torture is rather extreme duress, so that isnt really much of an argument in my view. I dont dispute that you could inflict an amount of suffering on me that would make me wish to die, I just think, while not in that state, that if I were in it would not be ethical for me to make that choice, and so that under that circumstance I shouldnt be able to.

Everyone dies eventually, so the distinction in my mind isn't so much the how, though obviously does change, but the when.

If you take the stance that deciding to die is okay if you know you won't live past a certain time period, then you either need to arbitrarily definite a cut off time period for how long until death is certain a person can do this, or simply decide that anyone can do that whenever, because death is already certain given a sufficient time interval.

If you don't, then information that someone's death is imminent doesn't really change that.

I think one of the more controversial ones I have is that I don't tend to be in favor of things like MAID or voluntary euthanasia. I understand why people are for it, but I don't like the idea of killing someone over something that is ultimately in their head, like pain or a person's desires, and the way I tend to evaluate the value of life has something of a floor (that is to say, I do not really believe that there is such a thing as a "fate worse than death" so to speak, because I believe that death is the least functional state a person can have and anything above that implies at least some functioning even if that state is still highly undesirable).

I believe, based on what I see whenever I notice this community on /all, that this community is for a satire website, so probably.

If he were a chicken, he'd probably care more about dealing with bird flu, even if for purely selfish reasons.

x3 is an emoticon, its like xD but more furry as the 3 is like a cat's mouth shape kinda. Sorta like the difference between :) and :3

In my family growing up, pancakes for dinner was a common enough thing, but my father constantly insisted that if you're having them for lunch or dinner they're called flapjacks instead and only pancakes when made for breakfast. And every time we had them I'd mess with him by pretending to forget and asking him if he was making pancakes that night.

Even there though, what is the actual point of a phone app controlled smart toilet, even if you open sourced the whole thing? Unlocking one's phone and tapping the app icon, and then presumably a button on the app, is going to take more time than one press of a lever that one is right next to anyway, and the latter doesn't present as many points of failure.

In the case of climate change and being a profit seeking business, I'd assume attempt to identify things whose demand will increase, like land in the areas predicted to remain most comfortable to live, farmland in areas least likely to lose productivity, companies that produce things like water desalination infrastructure, etc, and buy those things early before they become more expensive.

I've generally heard the origin explained as coming from an offshoot of the general scifi community in the late 70s to early 80. There are a lot of animal people in sci fi (things like aliens designed after animal people, or stories about animals given human traits and characteristics, or people being spliced with animal dna), and fantasy stuff which has a related audience, and some people particularly liked that trope.

I mean, the current borders of the US do include some former foreign states and land previously owned by others, that were taken over in the past, Hawaii for example. Does that not make it an empire, or does that stop counting after a century or so?

While I agree that its unlikely for him to go out that way, failed attempts dont make the chance zero. The people trying that only have to get lucky once, he has to avoid being unlucky every time.