Posts
Comments
In this situation, I would say that whatever you currently believe is the minimum, is the actual minimum. If you manage to convince yourself that a higher minimum is required, you have simply updated the variable.
Ethical. If I wouldn't want people torturing dogs, I have no justification to be okay with people torturing cows, pigs, and chickens
Dogs are genetically selected for living together with humans. As such, and unlike their wolf predecessors, dogs are friendly towards us. In many cases, care is reciprocal, in that we more often care about people who care about us. I propose that chickens don't have even the slightest sense of morality, and don't care whether their siblings live or die. With this in mind, I think it's a somewhat justified to torture birds and low mammals, since they don't care about our or their families' well-being to begin with.
However, I would never torture a chicken unless I was at least 99% sure it had valuable information, and the future of the farm was at stake.
| As for my libertarian view on net neutrality: When the governments allow for true competition between ISPs, they can drop all net neutrality provisions as far as I care.
Do you believe that true competition can exist in a free market where the economics of scale are as big as in the ISP market? If net neutrality isn't enforced, a big ISP could squash a small new ISP by demanding a lot of money for peering. They are much less likely to try something like this against a big ISP, who has a lot more bargaining power.
(I am Assuming "true competition" means at least low barriers to entry.)