Hotels are way worse. It’s all the same job regardless of how fancy the hotel is, but the more expensive chains like Mariott will have bizarrely elitist staff, mostly front desk and management.

“no experts”

I never said that, I said that you are cherry-picking the handful of related people who agree with you, most of whom are not experts in anything relevant.

Clearly there are going to be a handful of subject matter experts that believe claims with extraordinarily weak evidence (see Nobel disease), the game of science is not played by fishing for individuals with degrees that support your beliefs. It’s by looking at the evidence, engaging in a fair amount of epistemic and abductive reasoning and arriving at the most useful conclusion. In the case of people like you who don’t have the skillset to do so, you can defer to the consensus of relevant experts. (Eyewitnesses are not subject matter experts, and I certainly wouldn’t cite my vision as an instrument in a paper).

“Some scientists and even Harvard”

You realise you are talking to a physicist right? All your appeal to crackpots and generic “find more information” statements aren’t going to convince me unless you rigorously explain why you think the data is better explained by theories that you can’t formulate (nobody seems to be able to, because the theory is just “it’s beyond our understanding”, the most epistemically worthless statement ever) versus very well known sensory and psychological phenomenon.

“An overwhelming body of government documents”

Which you don’t understand.

“You’re a random internet stranger”

You’re a random internet stranger as well (actually neither of us are, both of us have public works that is easily findable, and let’s say mine are far more topically relevant). Why on earth are you supposed to treated credibly? Especially when you cite your expertise in QM to explain data, like every single crackpot.

“I am a skeptic after all”

How? If you were a skeptic you would have already been aware of my criticism that the data observed does not match any physical theories, AND that we have no reason to believe that these physical theories are wrong. You are confused by the fact that “diagnostics” merely shows that the software/equipment is working as designed not that it is interpreting the data correctly. (We also don’t know what “diagnostics” were performed, in actual physics we don’t say “we checked for errors” we give explicit descriptions of what errors we conjecture and how we accounted for to them, so saying “diagnostics were performed” is scientifically worthless).

I’ve already given several reasons to doubt the results: unreliability of eye witnesses, faulty interpretation of information, and failure to correspond with existing extremely well established theories. All of these are well-established facts and I gave an example of each one, some of which are so common they are open problems in remote sensing, and regularly exploited. The fact that you are so unfamiliar that you just deny them as being irrelevant, is entirely on you.

“Project Blue Book …”

Sure, there is something of interest in recording UAP, just like any other data. This does not produce any credible theories about them corresponding to the data. In fact essentially every report I’ve read can be summarised as “we can’t determine why we have this data”, that’s it.

“All of the experts”

You mean the people that agree with you and have decided are “all of the” experts?

So can you explain to me why “Q” is NOT the expert on internal politics, but the handful of organisations and witnesses are the experts even though you admit that their views aren’t mainstream in science and can’t refute any argument.

It’s quite hilarious that you complain about this brother, when you are engaging in the same faulty reasoning to defend a conspiracy theory that you want to believe.

On a similar note, you don’t seem to grant parapsychology the same level of credibility even though all the same arguments would lead to conclusions like telepathy actually being real.

Easy, get a physics degree. I already pointed out how the data was clearly incorrect. If UAP are really as credible as you claim (convincing military pilots and Congress critters) how come it doesn’t convince the actual subject matter experts? Physicists.

If this was even remotely plausible, you wouldn’t be having a handful of people looking into it, it would be a core focus of the field.

“I would not consider my article legitimate research”

Then why did you link it as an example? Nobody cares about what style of essay you like to write, this was clearly you trying to flex.

I write actual research papers and I wouldn’t be so arrogant as to cite my own work (which actually does meet standards of research) as an example; you must just be really proud of that BS in psychology.

“Know more than our greatest pilots and military personnel”

Because they built the sensors and study atmospheric physics? You realise pilots, are pilots, not aeronautical or electrical engineers? Why on earth is their opinion magically more credible? Especially when the claim is completely contradictory to very well established physics. I fact I even gave a reason why their information is overwhelmingly likely to be faulty, due to atmospheric heating.

Before anyone tries to engage in explaining complex physical phenomenon, they should try to have some knowledge about it. I would personally recommend reading a textbook on radar engineering and another in atmospheric physics which pretty much explains nearly every single illusion and sensory error possible.

Since you clearly don’t have the intelligence to follow my recommendation, a simpler circumstance is investigating the second Gulf of Tonkin attack, where “the greatest pilots and military personnel” reported seeing attacking boats (including on sonar, a clearly infallible sensor) and bombed and torpedoed empty ocean. We know it was empty now, because the NVA records show that no ships were their.

This isn’t to denigrate the people involved, it’s simply an notable example that sensors can fail, data can be misinterpreted and people can perceive objects that aren’t there especially if they have been told something’s there beforehand.

FYI, fooling sensors into providing false data is a core part of military strategy, it’s the motivation behind ECM, low-altitude interdiction, etc.

If you even remotely understood the topic you would realise that even the definition of UAP means absolutely nothing. If you have 10s of thousands of hours of sensor data over decades of course you’re going to have inputs you can’t map to physical objects, the fact that you can’t conclusively identify the source of the input doesn’t mean that it’s a magical object, or even a real one.

There’s a reason why physicists and the military aren’t dedicating extraordinary amounts of time on these, because we all know it’s nothing.

Weird that you would showcase a vacuous article as an example of “research”.

Have a bit too high of an opinion of yourself don’t you?

Edit: Your UAP article is hilarious. You have a BS in bs, I mean psychology, and yet you are voicing an opinion on how QM totally corroborates with the data. You don’t even know how radar and infrared sensors work (and their inherent and potential flaws), and completely fail to consider that displacement of air at the velocity claimed would heat it several thousand degrees, not “quantum cooling”. The only way this wouldn’t happen would be if the object somehow didn’t interact with matter while simultaneously emitting electromagnetic radiation, or it was sensor errors.

You’re a complete fraud.

What are laws if not violations of autonomy and privacy?

Intelligent people actually recognise that this is not a useful distinction between prohibiting abortion and any other action.

So why can’t you?

The amount of people that move simply for abortion laws is miniscule. It’s such a small part of the lives of even the people that opt for abortions, that it is of little consideration.

Marijuana on the other hand, might actually have an effect on the population because drugs are a major part of a lot of peoples lives.

Do you literally not know what ethics is? You’ve acted like a complete and total moron in every reply on this post.

You realise you can sum your position to

If someone desires something

Then we should grant it despite any prohibition on active killing, ( presumably so long as it does not harm an individual other than the subject)

But this isn’t actually accepted by virtually anyone, see suicidality for temporary conditions or just the fact that we have no apparent obligation to grant something based on mere desire.

The entire pro-euthanasia argument relies on basing moral principles on wildly variable emotions and sympathy.

The question is not whether or not someone should suffer, but whether it is permissible to kill another, or even a proper choice. Should assisted suicide be granted for temporary conditions? After all subjects of temporary conditions suffer too and they may even wish to die. If you say no, then clearly your decision making is able to override a desire of the subject. If you say yes, then there is no logical barrier to killing any momentarily sad person.

“Who are you to judge … Why do you refuse to answer”

I’ve been answering this entire time. The answer is everyone is able to judge, there appears to be this underlying fundamental intuition and logic across humans that if followed leads to the statements I’ve made.

Feeling sad for someone and wanting to alleviate there suffering does not logically lead to “therefore we should actively kill them”.

If you want consolation, you would more than likely be left to die. Children were extremely disposable up until the last few thousand years. Often subjects of cannibalism.

This claim comes from 2 people, I would be a little more cautious about broadly embracing there claims of systemic discrimination, without actually knowing the corpus of research on the topic.

Also there claim of endurance being an important factor is suspect. Women have better endurance in that there performance drops more slowly than men, however the drop isn’t significant enough to result in any total advantage. Which is why women still lose in endurance competitions.

It’s fair to say that women probably weren’t significantly disadvantaged in hunting (especially smaller animals), but it’s quite misleading to argue that their endurance added some additional advantage.

It’s not “revenge porn” if the images have already been leaked. Just like it’s not espionage to report on information already leaked.

Gnumeric is superior for numerical evaluation.

Also any analysis on scale will use some proper programming language often in C or Fortran since Excel is simply far too slow.

If the building was in fact “boarded up”, then it might be hard to argue that it was someone’s home. At least in bankruptcy law inhabited places do have special protections against seizure.

It’s unfortunate that people want to die and they physically can’t kill themselves at that moment, but there is no moral obligation to grant desires that people can’t fulfill themselves. (There is also the autonomy objection, even if the patient has perfect decision making, killing them now derives then if any future decision making).

We do have an obligation to prevent unreasonable deaths, especially if we are the one’s actively killing them as is the case with MAID.

Therefore a system that potentially (or rather inevitably) causes moral bad without any moral good, is not a morally good system and has no benefit to existing.

The reality is that unreasonable deaths will happen, and expanding it (and lowering the thresholds) will increase the percentage of assisted suicides that don’t meet some metric of moral permissibility.

There is also the societal harm objection, if illnesses/conditions are treated by euthanasia, and euthanasia becomes a popular way of death (like it is increasingly so in Canada) the incentive to improve treatment of those conditions is weaker. It does not result in a improving society in the long run if euthanasia is an acceptable option to certain conditions (note, this refers to more than just medical health but also living or social conditions).

“That this has anything to do with morality”

You literally claimed that people have an inherent right, and even in this comment you are heavily implying that not providing assisted suicide is bad. (Both moral claims. In case you don’t know morality is just a system of determining if something is good or bad).

“Nobody but you is claiming any obligation”

You are claiming that people have a right to be killed by a second party. That second party therefore has some obligation to fulfill that right.

I’m fairly certain that if everyone in the world refused to meet this obligation, you would still object because it violates the subject’s wishes.

“I’m not trying to justify anything”

Besides of course permitting a second party to kill someone.

I’ll accept that I’m trying to justify denying this right to have your desire to die fulfilled (as it simply doesn’t exist for any other action or desire) because that is simply a moral argument, just like you are making moral arguments regardless of whether you are aware of it or not.

FYI mixing insults with an argument is not a logical error as commonly claimed. As long as it not part of the premises or reasoning any statement (insult or not) has no effect on the soundness of the argument. Also my argument wasn’t that you made a moral claim, it’s extremely obvious that you did I would never have bothered to point it out. The argument is that you are arguing for second-party homicide (and impermissible act) to be allowed based on some right to have your wishes fulfilled that simply doesn’t exist.

So you read the duck’s mind? Do you think the duck even has a conception of what death is? According to you it wouldn’t even understand a hip replacement. Why are you assuming that it therefore wishes for death?

Anyway the point of this is that killing the duck is permissible because killing ducks is always permissible. The delusion that you are making the best decision for it is impossible to know. And more importantly it is completely irrelevant to the permissibility of killing humans.

The criteria by which we are able to kill mentally incapable animals (species membership or even low mental ability) is not the same by which we can argue for assisted suicide. Because humans and ducks are radically different objects with different inherent moral valuations.

Additionally consider that your comparison is morally relevant. If it is permissible to mercy kill ducks based solely on presentation, without being able to determine the ducks desires. Then it follows that we can kill humans based on presentation alone as long as we don’t know there desires. Even worse if we undermine the validity of there expression of desire it is permissible to kill them anyway.

“Look this paraplegic wants to live, they must be delusional who would want live like that, time to get the MAID”.

Even stupid films like Million Dollar Baby, embed the perception that disabled people just want to die.

As much as people want to be nice and give people whatever they want, it is without question that as soon as you permit others to actively kill other people, it’s going to be open to abuse and severe ethical consequences. The history of MAID is a fine example of that, it’s expansion was actually made by a court decision to make the law more consistent. True logical consistency would naturally follow to permit assisting suicide in all cases, after all why are we discriminating against people with very temporary conditions. Clearly they are just as capable of experiencing suffering as any other person.

“Judging these individuals here”

Are you illiterate? Would you like to prove this statement to me?

“Nobody is claiming that you are obligated”

One is not obligated, this had nothing to do with me specifically.

“Who are you to say that they’re undeserving of that help”

Because there is no obligation to enable an action based on a desire. This is simply you (and others who make this argument) carving out a moral imperative simply because it justifies something you already want (post-hoc justification).

So you don’t believe that medical conditions affect your brain?

Aging alone effects it, elderly people are arguably less mentally capable than teenagers. So if teenagers cannot consent to sex based on mental capability, then how are lower capability elderly supposed to be able to consent to death?