Ok, so in this particular instance, they’re not having their strings pulled by the puppet masters? Is that what you’re saying? They are acting on their own now? You said they are puppets. WHO IS PULLING THE STRINGS TO FORCE THEM TO ISSUE ARREST WARRANTS?

Removed by mod

Oh ok. Right, so the west (Europe, UK, US) are PRO-Israel, meaning they are AGAINST the arrest warrants for Netenyahu et.al. If the west we’re pulling the strings of the ICC, then it wouldn’t have issued the warrants in the first place.

But then the west would be pulling the strings in a conspiracy against itself! That’s nonsense sorry

Puppets of whom? Usually conspiracy theorists like yourself tend to point at Jews/Zionists/globalists when inventing some shady cabal that controls the police. But in this case that wouldn’t make sense. So are you positing a pro-Palestine cabal, which has the power to control the ICC and the ICJ, but doesn’t have the power to stop its people being massacred every day for over a year? Who? Who is pulling the strings in your puppet show?

The answer is because everything is lazy, and it’s easier to obey the laws of physics than not to. The path of least resistance is real.
Why are the laws of physics the way they are and not different? I have a degree in physics and I still don’t know the answer to that, annoyingly.

And step six is “Profit”

I think your last sentence answers the OP in a nutshell. There’s nothing more to it than that, and there needn’t be.

I fundamentally disagree that this distinction exists, and even if it did this is not a situation where it would apply.

But it does exist; preaching is persuading or guiding others to follow your own beliefs. If no distinction existed then we would be mechanically bound to preach what we believe, and we’re not, so it’s a choice.

Everyone is a hypocrite to some degree. There are levels of hypocrisy that are breathtaking, and levels that are just meh.

‘Thou shalt not kill’ is a biblical commandment, not a principle. It comes from the fundamental principle of harm minimisation, and the two examples you gave are different (extreme) applications of that principle, see: the trolley problem etc. It’s morality for babies; looking at extreme black and white cases to be able to get a clear, consensus issue. Life is rarely that simple. Morality is never that simple.

They straight up went “when I break my own moral principles it doesn’t feel as bad as when others break them against me”

I’m not sure, that seems like another extreme interpretation of something more nuanced.

This behaviour is morally no better than that of megachurch pastors who preach the immorality of gay sex and get caught paying men to fuck them in the ass.

OP didn’t say they preached their morals though. Holding morals and preaching them are different things. I’d put this more in the category of people who pray secretly to a different god than the state-enforced religion, since OP is living in a capitalist society whilst not holding capitalist values.

I think there’s got to be room for some grey areas in morality. I abhor late-stage capitalism, but I would not rather die than shop at a chain supermarket.

Eggs is a different topic

~again you, saying that eggs are separate from veganism.

You appear to be disagreeing with yourself, never mind me.

Veganism IS morally correct

~that’s you. That’s you talking about veganism.

You’re proving my point quite nicely

Veganism is the topic. Vegans don’t eat eggs.

I don’t think you get to make a black and white, general argument about this. How about this: if a person raises and cares for a chicken, giving it a charmed life it would have otherwise never had, but takes and eats its unfertilised eggs, then that’s not morally wrong.
It’s just not as obvious as people think, and your first sentence is a naive oversimplification and a great example of the kind of lazy argument I’m talking about. But I don’t want to get into it with my friends since it’s such a touchy subject, and I’ll never get a decent conversation about it online.

I love vegans. A few of my friends are vegan. There are two things some vegans will say which boil my piss, however. First is that they have a moral high ground because they don’t eat animals. This isn’t a given, it’s a complex and nuanced argument I’d happily partake in if the other party weren’t approaching it with a top-down belief that they’re already in the right. Second is the notion that we should all be vegan to save the planet from climate apocalypse. I don’t want this comment to get too long, but I have multiple problems with this faulty line of reasoning, and it muddies the waters. The only likely effect of it is that less progress is made on stopping global heating. So the upshot is that these people are literally sacrificing the ecosystem they purport to care about in order to bang their drum. Fuck that.

I desperately want to believe your optimistic reading of the Paradox. I hope you’re right, and, thankfully, I can’t honestly say with any certainty that you’re not.
The mass extinction that killed off the dinosaurs might be quite rare, especially if it was some kind of orbital event. In which case we might have accelerated advancement in comparison to other Goldilocks planets.

Agree completely on a planetary scale. The chances are that we are very ordinary on a galactic scale, and that millions of other lifeforms on millions of other planets have risen to roughly this level of sophistication, and thereby become too powerful for their overwhelming stupidity, and died.
See: the Copernican Principle, the Great Filter, and Dissipation-driven Adaptation (in ascending order of how much time you’ve got)

Oh dear, no. Not at all. No, not in the slightest. No. That’s not…
No.

Maths is the language of the universe. Show some god damned respect.