HN user

csisnett

29 karma
Posts1
Comments27
View on HN

Your first responsibility is to protect your children from external threats, if you give them all the privacy in the world you won't be able to do that, so you need to somehow know what they're doing which means either an internet blocker or little privacy, both of which I'm fine with.

For kids as small as yours the internet would not even be a choice if they were my kids

Because work is a means towards an end not the end itself.

Pretty much everything in this life is a means towards the end.

We were created to know and love God which is our ultimate end that will satisfy all our desires. Without him you will always feel something is missing.

None of those things are in the best interests of the people involved. Homosexuals who engage in same sex activity are more propense to addictions and self harming behaviour, children of divorced couples do far worse than of couples that remained married. Abortion is killing your own child, and child abuse is reprehensible but it happens at any major institution religious or not, if you don't believe me look up how many kids are sexually harrased at secular high schools or worse see how many secular people want to talk to middle schoolers about sex

So if every religion is a cult then why many mainstream denominations are easy to leave?

You're making it harder for people to actually share how to escape an actual cult by calling every religion a cult

I don't agree with this, businesses and regular people buy domains, if you want to ban government accounts or affiliated accounts that's one thing but to kick people in such a short notice is not ok

I have asked repeatedly for what exactly are the limiting factors that will make population unsustainable and there hasn't been satisfactory answers that could defend your position or make me rethink.

You should be able to defend a position that other people think is immoral specially if you think is morally good.

The Wikipedia link and theory is based on a computer model. No model can predict future innovation because part of future innovation is non linear and hence unpredictable utilizing current trends.

So you have something you can't predict (future innovation and how that will affect energy and new materials).

The burden of proof is on you given that you want to do something unnatural and immoral: make sterile millions of people.

If you want to sterilize yourself I don't agree with it but I cant stop you but that's not enough for you folks, you presume you have the right to promote mass sterilization so yes I'm going to say it for what it is: immoral.

If you think X amount of poor people should not exist in the future then you must also think X amount of poor people should not exist in any other time period. Or do you think somehow it was a good thing to be poor in the past but now is bad?

The reality is that if you go back far enough your ancestors were poor by modern standards, and if someone have done what you want to do to the poor today you wouldn't exist.

It is immoral to want for others what you don't want for yourself

If you're saying the world is overpopulated by X then you're saying X amount of people who exist shouldn't exist.

No matter how you paint it, you think it is a good thing for you to exist but not others.

"Balance of health, nature and economics" nice words for basically "I want fewer poor people in the world so let's help them sterilize themselves" instead of creating wealth which isn't inherently immoral and would actually have a positive impact if done rightly

Wealth is things that people value. Wealth creation is finished when individuals freely, and willingly exchange what they currently have (money) for valuables and continue to do that happily.

That can be software so yes, given that software can be created without limits and that software wealth creation is a subset of total wealth creation that alone is proof that wealth creation is unlimited.

However if you think material resources is the limiting factor then you're going to have to explain exactly what is going to stop scientists from developing new materials that can be used in new products or in existing products.

What is that constant that you talk about?

It is immoral to think the world would be better with fewer people because what you're really saying is, 3 Billion people or whatever number shouldn't exist. If you think not existing is a good thing then we wouldn't be having this conversation would we?

Funny how people who think the earth overpopulated always think is other people who are overpopulating it, and not themselves.

Wealth can be created. There's no limit to how much wealth can be created. Focusing on deleting the population is immoral.

Christians do not advocate for slavery. Many laws of the old testament were for the jews living at that moment of human history.

If you tried to establish a slave free society in a small nation sorrounded by slave owner empires how much time do you think that would last?

Don't study a whole cs curriculum unless you can afford to self study for years, instead make projects learn algorithms and data structures and apply for jobs. People with cs degrees also have to build things and practice algorithms/ mock interviews to get a job so do that!