Yes it can cause those things...in combination with other drugs but where is the evidence that it causes those symptoms on its own? Many drugs become deadly in combinations that are otherwise harmless on their own.
On Protonmail: I've been using it for about a year now and their spam filtering is terrible. I was thinking about migrating my yahoo account to them but it does nothing to prevent the huge amount of recruiter spam I get. I also am not a fan of how little space you get with them.
New revolutions in science have tended to be less "we were totally wrong" and more "in extreme cases things don't quite fit the models". It's conceivable that FTL communication and travel aren't as impossible as we currently think, but that would require that things we've demonstrated fairly well are completely wrong. The same wasn't true with heavier than air flight, which (as the other comment notes) we had proof of it being possible (in birds). We knew it was possible in theory, but figuring out how to actually work out the mechanics of the process were the sticking points.
There are huge parts of physics that remain a mystery( dark matter, dark energy, the big bang, like how on Earth does inflation make sense, a ton of crazy particle physics that go completely over my head). And the funny part is that a lot of these can't be really fit into our current models in a meaningful way. So until we deal with all those I still have hope for an FTL drive.
Physics is very difficult, and magical thinking is much easier and more fun. Relativity is a description of the geometry of the universe, and any subsequent theory will need to explain the same observations. These observations both prohibit any form of FTL, and suggest that a universe with FTL would almost certainly contain causality violations. The hope that down will someday become up is ill-founded, and the effects of this would not be what you would want.
We saw birds flying around when we were cavemen. It's always been clear that heavier-than-air flight is possible. We don't currently know of any space-birds flying around black holes.
It's also reasonable to assume that more and more extreme physics is going to be harder and harder (if not practically impossible for any future humans) to come up with new gee-whiz uses.
Haha, even as an occasional meat eater I liked this comment. If this sort of comment is annoying, maybe time to inquire into the defensiveness. Maybe you have too much "skin" in the game?
The annoyance is fascinating to me, because I grew up eating meat and also felt such annoyance. It's an interesting thread to pull if you're into knowing thyself - why do I feel especially aggravated on this topic? Might lead you somewhere.
I don't find this equivalence very compelling. Anti-gay arguments are based on either religious or extreme-naturalism grounds. This seems much different than arguments based around not harming sentient creatures, which I think many people intuitively identify with to some degree.
You argue philosophy (religion is a philosophy like any other in my book) but an existentialist would tell you that the morality of eating meat is purely an artificial construct: the animal simply exists and the actions of killing the animal and eating it are just actions.
Or, to put it more bluntly: you can't prove that eating animals (or gay sex, for that matter) are the "wrong" choices to make, no matter how much philosophy you've read or argued about. You can't even prove you exist or that this is reality. If you can't even prove that, you're a long way from proving that killing animals is a moral choice.
I think you misunderstand the nature of argument. All arguments rest on a set of premises, and those premises themselves rest on premises, recursively so until we reach axioms which we simply accept to be true without further justification - like that the external world exists in some sense. Feel free to doubt that, by all means. Proof is not accessible to us - not a point the existentialists made (as you seem to believe), but rather something they took as self-evident and were responding to.
Analytic philosophy basically contends that if we assume axioms hold (correspond to the world in some sense) and we construct arguments from those premises which conform to logical rules, then the conclusions of those arguments are also true of the world in some sense. This is, of course, doubtable in various ways - but you pretty much have to abandon reason itself as the alternative.
Our current scientific understanding in no way leads to such a conclusion.
However, even considering the hypothetical that plants are sentient, eating plants actually causes the least harm seeing as livestock are not very efficient converters of plants to meat.
>eating plants actually causes the least harm seeing as livestock are not very efficient converters of plants to meat.
Let's continue this facile logic to it's conclusion: if animals are causing so much "harm", why shouldn't we kill them to prevent them from "harming" so much?
I could probably write something, but the world wouldn't let me enjoy it. So I languish in pointless tech jobs producing executable web fluff that lives between the browser and the database ('middleware'), that will go into the trash in less than five years, because you're supposed to pantomime productivity in exchange for food and shelter.
