Well, you're free to run it the way you want, ultimately, whether you curl or you download any other way, you're still running something from the Internet.
That's less the point and more that DNS can get hijacked, scripts changed without your control, etc. You run it fine today, begin to trust it, then it's changed and affects you differently, at best causing a headache and at worst stealing your files or wrecking your machine.
We're probably splitting hair but if your concern is DNS hijacking, then that still applies to pretty much anything else you do with Github, and by the way, most of your creds have already probably been stolen via fake logon portals in that case.
I agree, people should check what they are piping in to sh, but they should also read all of the source code they are pulling and compiling from Github.
Grotesque. We get it, it is never enough, and indeed, as long as you don't stay on the spot, you are indeed probably consuming something that has a CO2 footprint.
If they had "always been that way", by definition, you wouldn't be here, because you (or I, or everyone else) being here is the result of a society producing descendants, which itself is the consequence of a society producing couples.
I guess sex can be considered a human right in a certain way: no third party should be able to stop a consenting group of people to having sex.
While this is the wrong definition: another person should have sex with me. This latter definition often seems to be the taken meaning of "sex is a human right" and seems to be interpreted that way to advance the interest of that particular person saying it.
I think that kind of understanding of “sex is a human right” is one step away from “woman is an object/a service”. And also this “human right” is usually applied to men, but not women. What about woman’s right to have a very attractive sexual partner? Now if have two rights simultaneously, you have a contradiction.
I was quite taken aback by the "Does that logic work for Blacks for instance ?" that started this above but then thought that instead of getting angry why not attempt to get my argumentation straightened out instead :).
As you say, that way of thinking makes women literally into less than even a service: for a service you at least need to pay for; a human right on the other hand (right to live, express yourself, freedom of speech etc) is normatively free. The fact that these women who somehow must sleep with you have rights too doesn't seem to occur to these people at all..
Deciding who to have sex with is definitely a form of discrimination. For many, it can even be racial, religious, etc. We as a society have determined that it is okay to discriminate based on personal tastes when it comes to sex.
That's not obvious though. One could imagine a society where we deem it okay to discriminate on those things when providing employment, but not when having sex.
As much as we want to believe Human Rights are some fundamental property of nature, the reality is they are simply an agreed upon social construct.
> 1. the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of ethnicity, age, sex, or disability.
> 2. recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another.
> Deciding who to have sex with is definitely a form of discrimination.
It's definitely discrimination in the sense of (2). But that doesn't seem to have any ethical implications.
Arguing that selecting sexual partners is unjust because it is "discrimination" in the (1) sense already assume it is "unjust". It assumes what is to be shown.
In other words. The reason discrimination (1) is considered unjust is not "because it is discrimination" but because people have made arguments for why treating people differently in certain situations is unjust.
What's the argument for why it's unjust that young men can't have sex with people against their preference?
Just vs. unjust is what captures the social construct part. How do you decide what is just vs. unjust? You either poll society as whole, the elites of the society, or the monarchy, depending on the type of government.
The entire field of moral philosophy is dedicated to this question. There are many ideas of how to characterize justice. I can't tell you what idea of justice you should subscribe to. There are tons of texts doing that much better.
Im just pointing out that the argument that something is bad because it is discrimination is circular. Unless you also argue why that particular form of discrimination is unjust (in whatever sense you prefer).
Morality is subjective at its core, so you can't "argue" that something is unjust, and the fact that moral philosophers baselessly think they can doesn't change this fact.
Healthcare services are a right in many countries. Sex can be put in a similar category. Just like lacking access to healthcare can lower the quality of your life, so can being alone and sexless. Healthcare services are a very intimate activity as well.
It's like saying that healthcare access with attractive nurses is not a right. It's not, but healthcare in many countries is a right.
If having sex is a right, who are you proposing they have it with. How do we ensure that someone is available for that? What about their right to not participate?
> If having sex is a right, who are you proposing they have it with. How do we ensure that someone is available for that?
The easy answer is to direct them to Grindr or the nearest gloryhole. There is no shortage of prospective partners willing to relieve even the most undesirable men of their sexual tension.
It may not be exactly what they want, but at that point they're just being picky. Everyone's a girl when they're face-down.
If healthcare is a right, who are you proposing to provide those services? How do we ensure healthcare workers are available to provide the services? What about their right to not participate?
For what it's worth, legally mandated quotas for DEI that are externally imposed on private companies are also quite problematic. However, a lot of that trend these days comes internally, for a variety of reasons.
At the end of the day, companies, while people, are not humans, and they are ultimately owned by humans (call them slaves, if you will). Women, on the other hand, are not under the same sort of regulation, and, not being essentially livestock, are not and should not be subject to the same sort of regulation that may well at times be sensible when applied to companies. Companies, who, in turn, are given quite a few privileges to operate (such as limited liability for their owners, subsidies, privileged tax treatment for a variety of income sources, etc).
It's ridiculous that you needed this spelled out, but happy to oblige.
I think the difference here is that in case of a female (or a male for that matter) it is their personal choice of whether they want to have sex with someone or not; but racial non-discrimination is a norm you are expected to follow. I.e it is a norm that anyone can decide on their own sexual behavior, and it's also a norm to not be discriminatory.
Well, maybe we should learn from history and start a bunch of wars to kill off a bunch of men and make it easier for the survivors? Is that what you want?
I prefer 'progress', thank you very much. You, and all your posts on this thread, sound bitter man.
Correct. But that's not a reason to voluntarily let others use weapons against us. This behavior that you exhibhit, of being a willingful victim, is one of the issues that foreign powers are glad to exploit.
