It’s almost difficult to believe Kant wasn’t just pulling a Schrödinger and proposing a ridiculous thought experiment to illustrate the absurdity of genuinely holding those views.

The idea that morality exists only as an intrinsic quality of an action, regardless of context or consequence, is more theology than philosophy. It’s useless to the point of harm to anyone faced with a world beyond a university or a monastery.

I like the part where he begins his 12 page, 8700 word essay explaining the numbering system with “It’s not hard”

Fun fact: whales and dolphins are also ungulates

Yep, but the states with sales tax get tired of getting cheated out of their tax revenue. The specific example where I saw this was a major hardware store chain in Oregon (no sales tax) right near the border of Washington (6.5% sales tax). They asked everyone “Washington or Oregon” at the register and checked ID for anyone who said Oregon.

Quick search says that Washington considers it a “sales and use” tax, so anything purchased out of state, but intended for use in Washington is supposed to be taxed. Kinda messed up, really.

In some cases like that, where you’re in a state that has no sales tax, but near the border of one that does, they’ll actually check ID and charge you sales tax if you’re from the sales tax state.

So I’ve read.

They still blew up their launch pad and showered a protected wildlife area with particulate, metal, and concrete debris.

They then built and operated their water deluge system without obtaining permits.

Typo or no, they’re still taking a fast and loose, “better to ask forgiveness than permission” approach that is a detriment to a protected natural environment. They intend to test the limits of the Texas government’s ability to show disdain for the environment in favor of private enterprise.

It’s not just blind hate for Elon, they’re genuinely terrible stewards of the environment in south Texas. They constantly lie about their intentions and impact to avoid having to take responsibility for anything. Say what you will about how independently they operate from his input, this is definitely a company culture that he cultivates and promotes.

Eastern District of Texas is extremely favorable to patent trolls. It’s not a coincidence that they filed the suit there.

We already know what he looks like in a cowboy hat, and that ain’t it.

Not surprising. Musk has referred to the entirety of Bellingcat as “a psyop” before.

How do you think smoking went from something nearly everybody did to being taboo? Maybe the labels don’t do anything for the last 10% of the population who still smoke today, despite the taboo, but those labels played a big role in reinforcing public awareness of the health effects of smoking.

As the holder of roughly $45 worth of Tesla stock, I voted against his pay package and every other shady, bullshit proposal on the ballot. My vote counted for almost nothing and I’d probably be considered an “activist shareholder” anyway, but it was worth the money I’ve lost to get to click that button anyway.

That is probably the lamest possible misinterpretation you could make, but I’m sure that’s intentional. Nobody is “both sides”-ing them but you.

I’m sure Trump will get right on that.

Then, 15 years later, when I rejoined the world of modern PC gaming, those games were all still available for download from my Steam account just because I bought the physical Orange Box back in 2007.

For that matter, isn’t it sacrilege to pray to some rando? These are pretty flimsy justifications for miracles even by Catholic standards.

Pierce Brosnan, too

That’s certainly not a flaw in the philosophy. As it pertains to the voter, you’re not expected to know the future, but you do have a civic duty to be informed when voting. If you have made a good faith effort to understand the context of the choice and the most likely outcomes of the options available, you can’t be faulted for not foreseeing the exact outcomes that unfold. If nothing else, because you can’t possibly know exactly what the outcomes of the alternatives would have been. Ignoring the most likely outcomes in favor of the most desired outcomes is what seems unethical. “Letting perfect be the enemy of good” and all that.

I genuinely “Kant” see how someone can justify a moral framework where only the action has intrinsic morality and the consequences are completely irrelevant. Sure, the morality of an action should be considered, but ultimately, real-world choices have to be made from a holistic consideration of the entire situation.

Similarly, I also reject the idea of perfectly objective morality. There are extreme shades of grey, but never black and white. No action can be said to be universally good regardless of both intent and context, except in religious moral frameworks.

I’d hardly call that comic a middle finger. Just a succinct way of expressing my disagreement. But since you asked, here’s the empathetic version:

Please appreciate that you’re not the only disappointed idealist. Everyone wants things to be better and I genuinely understand the desire to only vote for what you can defend to yourself morally. However, that’s not the framework we have to work within. The realities of American politics require pragmatism that is incompatible with stubborn idealism. My argument is that the deontological approach is unethical because it prioritizes how the voter feels about their vote over reducing total harm to the greatest number of people. Votes aren’t love letters and they aren’t prayers. To the extent that any of us as individuals have any influence on the mad, chaotic world that we all have to live in, consequences are more important than intentions.