Search Ideas

Factory-farmed pork and chicken are bad choices. Sufficiently so that it's worth stressing, rather than saying their well-fed counterparts are tastier or somewhat preferable.

Solid amounts of red meat are good or desirable

Plenty of simple sugar from fruit, milk, honey, or juice, is good.

PUFAs are generally healthy

I have trouble with altitude and can barely breathe when I am in, e.g. Bogotá. But Mendoza was no problem for me and I went on morning runs without even noticing a difference.

It's unlikely that an anarcho-capitalist president, if given enough time, will not lower these taxes.

Currently Argentina is also very bad at collecting tax from you.

Tractability is a consequence of creativity. It's a little like saying the difference between you and a rock, is that you can move faster.

Creativity isn't defined by its outputs but by its process. RNGs do not recognise or criticise ideas.

You're right and I revised my criticism.

A random number generator does not have universal creativity, because it is not a universal explainer: it can only generate explanations by accident. Universal explainers seek good explanations through conjecture and criticism.

A random number generator does not create explanatory knowledge.

If finality = foundationalism, then yeah they're the same and I was right all along. Justificationism and foundationalism are the same thing.

So? How is that foundationalism?

Why does this sound like I am equating them?

I’m not sure foundationalism and justificationism are quite the same thing.

You are right. Foundationalism is a kind of justificationism. The secure foundation is a kind of justification.

I will have to rewrite this in my article.

Indeed. Justification without finality is fake.

"X is true because of Y, but we can discuss Y"

Is functionally the same as

"X is true and we can discuss why"

Explanatory knowledge consists of statements. Statements are at least in part explicit. Therefore inexplicit explanatory knowledge is not possible.

Entirely explicit explanatory knowledge is not possible either, as all knowledge refers to other knowledge implicitly.

Getting customers addicted making it "so they cannot exercise their free will" denies human creativity, and opens the door for all sorts of draconic laws where people are "protected from themselves".

Making alcohol illegal has been tried and was disastrous. Drugs are already illegal, which is arguably also disastrous. Those who advocate MAKING most drugs illegal but not alcohol are, I think, people who want to outlaw weed.

Drugs are currently illegal, and though drug-related deaths have gone down recently, in the US, they were at an all time high. Drugs being illegal does not seem to deter drug use enough, to off-set drug user's ability to use legal recourse, proper testing, and other such benefits of (legal) society.

Drugs are too broad of a category. Is widespread cocaine use the same as occasional magic mushrooms? The latter is suggested to have neuro-protective benefits.

Subjectively applies to every good product that makes its purchasers want to buy more of it. Like good food, video games, comfortable chairs.

To produce, purchase, sell, or to use?

If the drug + violation becomes a pattern, it's rational to outlaw it. (Assuming the outlawing works.)

E.g. alcohol is prohibited for drivers, even for drivers who are great drunk drivers.