Neuralink Co-Founder Suggests He Left Elon Musk's Company Over Safety Concerns
Neuralink Co-Founder Suggests He Left Elon Musk's Company Over Safety Concerns
"For a medical device, safety often implies minimal invasiveness," Dr. Benjamin Rapoport recently told the WSJ.
You're viewing a single thread.
This is older news. The company is competing with PETA in most animals killed.
What's the story on PETA killing animals?
They have shelters that euthanized a high number of animals. They have also stolen animals from owners including homeless people and children.
12 year old article, here's newsweeks factcheck from a few years ago.
https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-peta-responsible-deaths-thousands-animals-1565532
Euthanasia as in mercy killing?
Your beef with PETA is that they euthanize sick animals when shelters can't afford to?
Euthanasia as in animals, no matter the quality of life, adoptability, and years left, are put down by the thousands because they're inconvenient to keep alive and get adopted while PETA preaches that killing animals is wrong. Also, did you read the bit about them kidnapping animals from kids and old people?
Plus they're cowards without the courage of their convictions. When I was growing up their protests included throwing red paint on people in fur but they wouldn't do it to someone in biker leathers. One got them shunned and laughed at, the other would get them killed like the animals they stole.
TL;DR their whole schtick is to either destroy others' property or steal loved members of families who have fur while killing many more animals than they save.
How many family pets have they kidnapped in total?
Consider that any number more than "zero" pets kidnapped and killed by a private entity is too many.
So is the number 1 time, 5 times? What is the situation?
Dude, the more I read your replies the more you sound like a stupid fucking moron. It seems like you don't want your idea of PETA changed so you're throwing meaningless questions everytime somebody answers you. Stop gargling on government agencies' balls.
My views on PETA would possibly be changed if anybody gave the numbers for their claims.
Since nobody else is willing to and you wanted to jump in, do you think you can do your buddies a solid and find the answer?
How many kidnappings are we talking about, specifically? Perhaps if you can do so without attempting rudeness, that would be appreciated and work in your favor.
How many are you comfortable with?
I am just asking the total number that you are aware of?
Is it just 1? Is it 5? Is it 8 million?
Not sure why you’re being downvoted for just asking an honest question 🤷♂️
It's not mercy killing when the animals weren't suffering and weren't voluntarily given up. It's murder for the sake of their agenda.
So PETA doesn't euthanize sick animals?
>you think euthanizing sick animals is bad?
>PETA euthanizes more than sick animals
>you think PETA doesn't euthanize sick animals?There isn't a single thing I can say to convince someone who isn't arguing in good faith.
Am I arguing or using the Socratic method?
Have you always felt the Socratic method is bad faith, or just when you already have a strong opinion?
The Socratic method involves asking questions to lead on discussion and participation. You're trying to discourage discussion by putting contributors on the defensive with an ad hominem disguised as a (loaded) question.
So, in fact, you're doing neither.
Nobody is forcing you to be in this conversation, or be on the defensive.
If you can't answer questions that make you uncomfortable to answer, that's something you should reflect on.
I am willing to answer any questions you may have of me.
,If you can't answer questions that make you uncomfortable to answer, that's something you should reflect on.
Again, you're attacking the other person instead of their argument.
It doesn't make your point any stronger. It makes people unfamiliar with debates defensive from being personally attacked, and it makes those familiar with debates realize that they're wasting their time.
You haven't answered any questions though. How many pets taken and euthanized the same day would be acceptable to you? How many animals that are adoptable, not ill, don't have behavioral problems, and aren't elderly should they be allowed to euthanize? Should they have to retract their ad campaign that ran for years claiming a link between autism and milk or should they be able to quietly redirect it and not confront it because the "science" was almost as laughable as the link between vaccines and autism?
You'll willingly answer, so I am eagerly awaiting answers rather than redirecting or trying to be the Glen Beck of PETA by JAQing off (I'm just asking questions!).
I think you're just being obtuse and pedantic for your own sake, if you're really curious you could very easily look this information up. Please stop being like this, you don't have to be this way. Touch grass for fucks sake, good luck out there, must be tough being an insufferable git.
Maybe it is pedantic. But people should have examined beliefs. I'm sorry you are against that.
Except you're not causing anyone to question their beliefs, you're just being intentionally obnoxious. If you wanted to provide some counter evidence to their point that would be a solid way to cause people to reconsider. As is I doubt you are being honest with your intention, even if to yourself. Maybe talk about it in therapy?
Aww shit, we got one of those master debaters.
You are arguing in bad faith
Asking for clarification is bad faith?
This comment chain is you defending PETA having high euthanasia statistics due to euthanizing animals they had taken from families yards and from homeless individuals. You had suggested that these euthanasias were mercy killings, and when another commenter pointed out that pets can’t be considered suffering even under the loosest definition of the word, you posed a rhetorical question in bad faith. If you actually wanted to argue that PETA’s euthanasias are only done in situations of suffering animals, you would have just said that and perhaps included a source for that claim like the initial commenter did for theirs.
TL;DR: Domesticated animals deserve death. More specifically, because they letting them live is "inhumane" because they won't thrive without human influence—which they're strictly against.
IMO: These people are fucking psychopaths.
Edit: Yes, that specific site is sponsored by the meat industry. I didn't think it needed to be said, but don't take sensational topics at face value and read any receipts provided (which they did). Or, use Google and find other sources (that are also probably backed by corporate or political interests). In either case, PETA has made it pretty clear that they're hypocrites who are euthanizing healthy animals.
Great job falling for animal industry propaganda
Have you stopped eating cows, chickens and pigs? If not, you, like PETA, believes they deserve death.
But do you have a non biased source not funded by the meat industry?
The website has receipts. Feel free to actually read them.
So... No, you don't.
And like PETA, you also believe certain animals are deserving of death.
I don't know, man, I think you might be a future member.
If you had not plugged your metaphorical ears and doubled down on an ad hominem, you would have seen that some of those receipts are self-reported filings from PETA themselves to the government.
I would link the definition of "ad hominem" for you, but let's be real: you're not going to read that either.
Permanently Deleted
It is an ad hominem to point out that like PETA, you are responsible for the death of animals?
It's an ad hominem to assert that I hold an unethical belief and then use said assertion to bolster your point.
I said PETA are psychopaths for needlessly killing animals, yet you assume that I'm not equally against killing animals for personal pleasure and consumerism.
Do you eat animals?
If so, that means you give money to animal murderers and that animals die for your benefit.
I apologize if you are vegetarian or vegan, but if so, when did you begin defending animal AG propaganda websites from being questioned?
No offense intended to vegetarians, but it's a half measure if they're doing it for ethical or climate reasons.
I genuinely do not care about that website; all that matters is their receipts. I care that PETA are hypocrites who needlessly kill living creatures while preaching about the ethics or lack thereof of needlessly killing living creatures.
High ideals but no means. They become hoarders and run out of money. Also it’s an org that long ago stopped being healthy.
They are out of money?
How did they stop bring healthy, in your opinion?
I’m saying that they don’t bring in enough money to truly be a no kill org. Essentially they are saying one thing and not doing it themselves.
As far as the org, it’s my belief that it started out with people who genuinely cared for animal welfare and wanted to do something about it. Over time the psychos edged out the good folk and now we get idiots breaking into university primate labs and releasing monkeys on the street.
Are they still doing that? I haven't heard about anything recently.
My understanding is they have been following the laws while other more extreme groups are now doing the extreme work.
My understanding could very well be wrong though.
Frankly I’ve not paid attention over recent years so we may both be wrong here.