profesorrod.bsky.social
Rodrigo L. González, aka Rusco.
Adorkable furry, Tech-Enhanced Learning scientist, Writer, Pedagogue and Science Popularizer.
Loves all sorts of animals.
Bae: @graedius.bsky.social 🇲🇽🦊💞🦝🇨🇦
920 posts
213 followers
705 following
Prolific Poster
Conversation Starter
comment in response to
post
There's all the lighting this game was missing!
It seems the visuals and levels were made with the emissive materials in mind.
comment in response to
post
Bluesky also runs on algorithmically fueled outrage and its so tiring 😴 We could had been oh so free from our self generated cycles of interminable purity purges when we were given a clean slate...
But maybe the good take is not "BlueSky bad". Rather, yet again, that SOCIAL NETWORKS WERE A MISTAKE.
comment in response to
post
The are line dancing in the middle of the protest while shouting Fuck ICE
comment in response to
post
People rationalizing their way around virtue ethics feel vaguely guilty because they know they're being bad
People rationalizing their way through utilitarianism feel like very clever guys
comment in response to
post
Under fascism even the "right kind of moms" are targeted and violated because they are often only seen and objectified, even through adoration, as a means to breed more patriot-soldiers.
This is because fascism is deeply misogynistic through its staunch commitment to traditional family "values".
comment in response to
post
For there is no bigger freedom than to choose how one dies, how one lives their life, and to what purpose they'd lay down their life for.
comment in response to
post
But in this hypothetical case this isn't mere suicide, for true suicide is pointless and purposeless. If your death means that billions will live, that is most purposeful.
Nevermind that this was resting on an angsty teenager. Give her time to mature until she can answer her ultimate question.
comment in response to
post
Initially, applied one's life, but given enough extension becoming a preserver of life is an ethicist's highest achievement. For long, the preservation of life is one of the basic tenets of ethics and morality, and thus suicide is often considered ultimately wrong.
comment in response to
post
But, should the right choices had been made, the conundrum isn't trivial anyway: Would you be able to stay selfish, to stay self preserving, if a cure for something that afflicts millions in the world was within you, yet, to get to it you must die? Would it be moral to live long while others suffer?
comment in response to
post
Ellie should had been given time to make the choice to either give upon her life or not. Even if she's a child nobody had the right to decide for her. This is because the maximally ethical pathway is to never take a life, but to give it to others on one's cost will always be the higher moral pathway
comment in response to
post
Now, what the fireflies did wasn't completely free of moral wrongdoing and unethical choices either.
Lying to the donor; saying that Ellie would just wake up from the procedure, but actually taking her life is completely wrong. The pretext is that any normal donor would be selfish and say "no".
comment in response to
post
So, if the cure was feasible, albeit at the cost of killing the donor, for the cure was inside the donor's brain, the murder by Joel of such capable doctors and team is completely selfish and morally reprehensible because it deprived the world of a cure to the apocalyptic cordyceps threat.
comment in response to
post
Some like to point out the lack of medical resources (vet grade supplies) and previous failed attempts to make the cure as a justification of Joel's actions, for Ellie's death would had been in vain. But people forget that experimental vaccines of the 19th century were made in humble conditions.
comment in response to
post
I always operated under the logic that a cure for the cordyceps infection, or at least a vaccine, was possible. The amount of resources, the secrecy and discretion shown realistically portrays what an intelligent group like the fireflies would had done, very unlike a group fueled by delusion.
comment in response to
post
I like to consider myself a capable ethicist and I only can say that no one, absolutely no one, would be equipped to righteously tackle the "make a cure by killing someone" conundrum. Though I'll say what happens at the end was the result of a chain of some of the worst ethical choices possible.